• This is a stand-to for an incoming competition, one of our most expensive yet.
    Later this week we're going to be offering the opportunity to Win £270 Rab Neutrino Pro military down jacket
    Visit the thread at that link above and Watch it to be notified as soon as the competition goes live

Poland. Look what youve brought on yourself...

#1
Russia to move missiles to Baltic

Russia is to deploy new missiles in a Baltic enclave near Nato member Poland, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev says.

Short-range Iskander missiles in the Kaliningrad region would "neutralise" the planned US anti-missile shield in Poland and the Czech Republic, he said.

The US says its shield is a defence against missiles from "rogue" nations, but Moscow sees it as a direct threat.

Cont/...
 
#2
Random_Task said:
A nice house warming gift for President Elect Obama too :D
Bush continues to warm the seat for the next couple of months.
 
#4
whitecity said:
Russia to move missiles to Baltic

Russia is to deploy new missiles in a Baltic enclave near Nato member Poland, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev says.

Short-range Iskander missiles in the Kaliningrad region would "neutralise" the planned US anti-missile shield in Poland and the Czech Republic, he said.

The US says its shield is a defence against missiles from "rogue" nations, but Moscow sees it as a direct threat.

Cont/...
US = defensive missile that, due to the pesky laws of physics, couldn't intercept Russian missile.

Russia = offensive missile intended to strike a peaceful neighbour.

And he wants to extend his term as well?! I think it's all falling into place.
 
#6
parapauk said:
whitecity said:
Russia to move missiles to Baltic

Russia is to deploy new missiles in a Baltic enclave near Nato member Poland, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev says.

Short-range Iskander missiles in the Kaliningrad region would "neutralise" the planned US anti-missile shield in Poland and the Czech Republic, he said.

The US says its shield is a defence against missiles from "rogue" nations, but Moscow sees it as a direct threat.

Cont/...
US = defensive missile that, due to the pesky laws of physics, couldn't intercept Russian missile.

Russia = offensive missile intended to strike a peaceful neighbour.

And he wants to extend his term as well?! I think it's all falling into place.
Oh yes, and lets not forget he was so brave that he decided to announce all this on the one day of the year no one would be paying attension. Like a cheap school bully who dare not do anything until teacher steps out of the classroom.
 
#8
This assumes that Russia had removed it's SRM capability from Konigsberg in the first place??

I was up in that part of the world in the middle 90's, and it was still very much a Military enclave then.
 
#9
parapauk said:
US = defensive missile that, due to the pesky laws of physics, couldn't intercept Russian missile.

Russia = offensive missile intended to strike a peaceful neighbour.
"Peaceful"??? They did provide forces to a military offeensive that launched an invasion against Iraq. What had Iraq done to Poland to warrant that?

Now, moving away from your deliberate attempt to cast this as a simple good v bad scenario, ask yourself whether Russia would be relocating their own missiles within their own territory in this manner if the Poles had not agreed to the US missiles being based in Poland?

Your comments are, for the large part, accurate. But miss the point somewhat and deliberately try to reshape the argument into something you feel more comfortable with. This is NOT about whether the missiles are defensive or offensive by nature, but whether Poland has now, through it's own policy choices, put itself at greater risk than before? Discuss.
 
#10
whitecity said:
parapauk said:
US = defensive missile that, due to the pesky laws of physics, couldn't intercept Russian missile.

Russia = offensive missile intended to strike a peaceful neighbour.
"Peaceful"??? They did provide forces to a military offeensive that launched an invasion against Iraq. What had Iraq done to Poland to warrant that?

Now, moving away from your deliberate attempt to cast this as a simple good v bad scenario, ask yourself whether Russia would be relocating their own missiles within their own territory in this manner if the Poles had not agreed to the US missiles being based in Poland?

Your comments are, for the large part, accurate. But miss the point somewhat and deliberately try to reshape the argument into something you feel more comfortable with. This is NOT about whether the missiles are defensive or offensive by nature, but whether Poland has now, through it's own policy choices, put itself at greater risk than before? Discuss.
Disingenuous, whitecity. As usual.
 
#11
whitecity said:
parapauk said:
US = defensive missile that, due to the pesky laws of physics, couldn't intercept Russian missile.

Russia = offensive missile intended to strike a peaceful neighbour.
"Peaceful"??? They did provide forces to a military offeensive that launched an invasion against Iraq. What had Iraq done to Poland to warrant that?

Now, moving away from your deliberate attempt to cast this as a simple good v bad scenario, ask yourself whether Russia would be relocating their own missiles within their own territory in this manner if the Poles had not agreed to the US missiles being based in Poland?

Your comments are, for the large part, accurate. But miss the point somewhat and deliberately try to reshape the argument into something you feel more comfortable with. This is NOT about whether the missiles are defensive or offensive by nature, but whether Poland has now, through it's own policy choices, put itself at greater risk than before? Discuss.
So this is an argument in which the real world on the purpose of these missiles is of no importance? Very convenient. If Herr Putin decreed that foreign Vodka producers were a mortal threat to Russia, would I be endangering UK security if I built one? Maybe, but that wouldn't be the point, the point would be the lunacy of the Russian threat.

And I note that the death of Russian democracy goes unlamented by you. It's made all the more tragic given the display we've just seen over the Atlantic.
 
#12
whitecity said:
parapauk said:
US = defensive missile that, due to the pesky laws of physics, couldn't intercept Russian missile.

Russia = offensive missile intended to strike a peaceful neighbour.
"Peaceful"??? They did provide forces to a military offeensive that launched an invasion against Iraq. What had Iraq done to Poland to warrant that?

Now, moving away from your deliberate attempt to cast this as a simple good v bad scenario, ask yourself whether Russia would be relocating their own missiles within their own territory in this manner if the Poles had not agreed to the US missiles being based in Poland?

Your comments are, for the large part, accurate. But miss the point somewhat and deliberately try to reshape the argument into something you feel more comfortable with. This is NOT about whether the missiles are defensive or offensive by nature, but whether Poland has now, through it's own policy choices, put itself at greater risk than before? Discuss.
How about:- Did Russia's Military Adventurers in the Caucasus affect Policy decisions in Eastern European States? Discuss.

Only fair :)
 
#13
parapauk said:
whitecity said:
Russia to move missiles to Baltic

Russia is to deploy new missiles in a Baltic enclave near Nato member Poland, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev says.

Short-range Iskander missiles in the Kaliningrad region would "neutralise" the planned US anti-missile shield in Poland and the Czech Republic, he said.

The US says its shield is a defence against missiles from "rogue" nations, but Moscow sees it as a direct threat.

Cont/...
US = defensive missile that, due to the pesky laws of physics, couldn't intercept Russian missile.

Russia = offensive missile intended to strike a peaceful neighbour.

And he wants to extend his term as well?! I think it's all falling into place.
Now let's look at this from another angle:

American missiles in Polland could be supplied with nuclear warheads within few minutes and freely reach Moscow. What kind of missiles will be deployed in Poland? Even Poles are not allowed to know exact details.

So from point of view of Moscow American missiles are potentially strategical ones.

By contrast Iscander-E missiles has only 290km range and are unable to hit any strategic object. So they are tactical missiles to counter future threat.
 
#14
Random_Task said:
whitecity said:
Random_Task said:
A nice house warming gift for President Elect Obama too :D
Bush continues to warm the seat for the next couple of months.
Indeed, but I don't think President Elect Obama will spend the months running up to inauguration playing hoops. I would imagine he'll be sitting in on one or two meetings. Happy to be corrected though.
Whose hoop will he be playing with?
 
#15
KGB_resident said:
parapauk said:
whitecity said:
Russia to move missiles to Baltic

Russia is to deploy new missiles in a Baltic enclave near Nato member Poland, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev says.

Short-range Iskander missiles in the Kaliningrad region would "neutralise" the planned US anti-missile shield in Poland and the Czech Republic, he said.

The US says its shield is a defence against missiles from "rogue" nations, but Moscow sees it as a direct threat.

Cont/...
US = defensive missile that, due to the pesky laws of physics, couldn't intercept Russian missile.

Russia = offensive missile intended to strike a peaceful neighbour.

And he wants to extend his term as well?! I think it's all falling into place.
Now let's look at this from another angle:

American missiles in Polland could be supplied with nuclear warheads within few minutes and freely reach Moscow. What kind of missiles will be deployed in Poland? Even Poles are not allowed to know exact details.

So from point of view of Moscow American missiles are potentially strategical ones.

By contrast Iscander-E missiles has only 290km range and are unable to hit any strategic object. So they are tactical missiles to counter future threat.
In truth, I think the missile issue is a decoy to cover for the fact that, by extending the president's term, democracy in Russia (such as it is), has finally been snuffed out. That's the strategic issue, not a few toy rockets.
 
#16
KGB_resident said:
parapauk said:
whitecity said:
Russia to move missiles to Baltic

Russia is to deploy new missiles in a Baltic enclave near Nato member Poland, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev says.

Short-range Iskander missiles in the Kaliningrad region would "neutralise" the planned US anti-missile shield in Poland and the Czech Republic, he said.

The US says its shield is a defence against missiles from "rogue" nations, but Moscow sees it as a direct threat.

Cont/...
US = defensive missile that, due to the pesky laws of physics, couldn't intercept Russian missile.

Russia = offensive missile intended to strike a peaceful neighbour.

And he wants to extend his term as well?! I think it's all falling into place.
Now let's look at this from another angle:

American missiles in Polland could be supplied with nuclear warheads within few minutes and freely reach Moscow. What kind of missiles will be deployed in Poland? Even Poles are not allowed to know exact details.

So from point of view of Moscow American missiles are potentially strategical ones.

By contrast Iscander-E missiles has only 290km range and are unable to hit any strategic object. So they are tactical missiles to counter future threat.
Sergey,

You do realize that the US doesn't need Poland to land nukes there right? And also, you do also realize that Russia considers itself a much larger player than the US does. Russia should be no more worried about nukes in Poland than in the arctic, Alaska, Baltic sea, etc. That is a very weak argument for being aggressive towards Poland.

Russia wants to be able to influence it's neighbors by intimidation and threat. The missile shield mitigates that threat and the shear volume of whining coming from Moscow makes me think that it would be more effective than they let on.

Will Moscow make the same mistakes the USSR made and caused it to collapse? I doubt it, they'll make all new ones.

And now, the US has a "twofor" clean slate. Twofor is two for the price of one. A new president, and a black one at that. When do you think Russia will get a minority president (oops ) that's right, the incumbent one is already extending his term.

If Russia wants to turn the world against the US, they are certainly going about it in a very obtuse manner. I mean, turn everyone against you first, then try to get them against the US? Russia is doing a great job of making NATO stronger and significant, that's for certain.
 
#18
KGB_resident said:
parapauk said:
whitecity said:
Russia to move missiles to Baltic

Russia is to deploy new missiles in a Baltic enclave near Nato member Poland, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev says.

Short-range Iskander missiles in the Kaliningrad region would "neutralise" the planned US anti-missile shield in Poland and the Czech Republic, he said.

The US says its shield is a defence against missiles from "rogue" nations, but Moscow sees it as a direct threat.

Cont/...
US = defensive missile that, due to the pesky laws of physics, couldn't intercept Russian missile.

Russia = offensive missile intended to strike a peaceful neighbour.

And he wants to extend his term as well?! I think it's all falling into place.
Now let's look at this from another angle:

American missiles in Polland could be supplied with nuclear warheads within few minutes and freely reach Moscow. What kind of missiles will be deployed in Poland? Even Poles are not allowed to know exact details.

So from point of view of Moscow American missiles are potentially strategical ones.

By contrast Iscander-E missiles has only 290km range and are unable to hit any strategic object. So they are tactical missiles to counter future threat.
I think you'll find it somewhat disingenuous to claim that AD missiles intended to intercept BM can be "fitted" with Nuke warheads and aimed at Moscow. Even more so when you consider that the payload is a kinetic engery load. Which means that it's a f**K off big tank shell traveling at silly speeds. And as for not knowing what Missles will be based in Poland........Google is your Friend.

Take a Freddie and backsquad....
 
#19
Sounds more like a new kind of war......The "Tepid war", slightly warmer than cold but not comfortable enough to take a bath in........or is this just another hand in the World Politics Poker game?
 
#20
joey_deacons_lad said:
If i was russian id be worried about a Chinese land grab while the US has a left leaning president with little experience of realpolitick or foreign relations
Bit like that Tom Clancy book - The Bear and the Dragon? Except the US won't come to Russia's aid in real life!?!?
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top