Poland. Look what youve brought on yourself...

#21
ghost_us said:
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?
Of course, the USA has many options to hit Russia (and visa versa). The most important issue here is a balanse. Any side should have equal capabilities (or almost equal). Unbalansed system is unstable. Russia hasn't anti-missile shield deployed near the USA. Do you see it as a strategic advantage of the USA? I see it this way.

ghost_us said:
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 is not a larger player than the USA. However, our security is too important to us to be careless. The Poles must realise that there exists a scenario where their territory could be hit.

Suppose that due to mistake or/and intentionally American missile would be launched toward Russian territory to 'intercept' so called Iranian missile. Once the missile would enter Russian air space it could be regarded as an act of agression with unpredictable consequences.

ghost_us said:
Russia wants to be able to influence it's neighbors by intimidation and threat.
Please, tell me frankly, does the USA try to influence many countries in the World sometimes using intimidation, treat and military force? So something that is normal for the USA is forbidden for Russia? Yes, it is a threat. Poland allows foreign missiles on its territory that are dangerous for Russian security. So Polish leadership must understand pretty clear how it could end. Btw, Georgian president was warned by Russia.

ghost_us said:
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.
Minority president? Stalin was Georgian. Current president Medvedev is half Jewish. Btw, there were many half-Jewish prime ministers recent years - mr.Kirienko, mr.Kasyanov (who is half Jewish, half Armenian), mr.Fradkov. There are too few Afro-Russians to expect a half-African president in Russia soon.

ghost_us said:
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.
Maybe but it doesn't matter. NATO is ineffective organisation anyway.
 
#22
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.
Whitecity,

Being part of a multinational force doesn't make you an aggressive nation. Polands (peak) 2,500 troops in Iraq is hardly an aggressive invasion.

Defense missles are, well, defensive. The missiles Russia is relocating are offensive in nature meant to threaten a bully it's neighbor. There's no getting around that.

Poland, putting itself at risk from Russia is a lot like a mafia informant putting themselves in harms way for testifying against the mob. If Poland is attacked by Russia for putting up defenses, then it is Russia who is to blame for the attack, not Poland.

Russia is quickly putting NATO back up on the map and making it significant again.
 
#23
KGB_resident said:
Of course, the USA has many options to hit Russia (and visa versa). The most important issue here is a balanse. Any side should have equal capabilities (or almost equal). Unbalansed system is unstable. Russia hasn't anti-missile shield deployed near the USA. Do you see it as a strategic advantage of the USA? I see it this way.
Sergey, that's akin to saying, we're both standing in a vat of petrol, the US has 7 matches and Russia has 5, they should both have 7. It really makes no difference at all.


KGB_resident said:
Russia is not a larger player than the USA. However, our security is too important to us to be careless. The Poles must realise that there exists a scenario where their territory could be hit.

Suppose that due to mistake or/and intentionally American missile would be launched toward Russian territory to 'intercept' so called Iranian missile. Once the missile would enter Russian air space it could be regarded as an act of agression with unpredictable consequences.
Does it really escape the average Russian the sheer volume of nations that would rise against it, including, but not limited to, the US? The fatalistic verbiage perhaps worked in the 80s, but today the Russian bear, while still dangerous, tends more to roar than to bite.

It's important to remember, that those "consequences" will be bidirectional.



KGB_resident said:
Please, tell me frankly, does the USA try to influence many countries in the World sometimes using intimidation, treat and military force? So something that is normal for the USA is forbidden for Russia? Yes, it is a threat. Poland allows foreign missiles on its territory that are dangerous for Russian security. So Polish leadership must understand pretty clear how it could end. Btw, Georgian president was warned by Russia.
The US does influence it's neighbors but by very different means. I couldn't imagine the US threatening Canada or Mexico with nuclear annihilation for putting up defensive missile systems, nor could I imagine them needing to put up defensive missile systems as the US is more apt to protect their sovereignty than to threaten it.


KGB_resident said:
Minority president? Stalin was Georgian. Current president Medvedev is half Jewish. Btw, there were many half-Jewish prime ministers recent years - mr.Kirienko, mr.Kasyanov (who is half Jewish, half Armenian), mr.Fradkov. There are too few Afro-Russians to expect a half-African president in Russia soon.
Come now Sergey, surely you knew who I was talking about. Medvedev is as much the leader of Russia as Putin lets him be. Now he is seeking to extend the Presidential term systematically eliminating the series of checks and balances that keep any one person from having too much power. What's next, by that extension, Putin becomes eligible for the presidency again? How predictable.

KGB_resident said:
Maybe but it doesn't matter. NATO is ineffective organisation anyway.
Maybe my history is a little fuzzy, but who was it that got the short end of the stick at the end of the cold war? NATO was clearly effective in dealing with Russia and less so in dealing as "World Police". Now they are getting a reinvigorated Russia with a passion for "tear stains and could have beens". Oh, and with a lot more members this time.
 
#24
Kitmarlowe said:
How about:- Did Russia's Military Adventurers in the Caucasus affect Policy decisions in Eastern European States? Discuss.

Only fair :)
Quite so. And already done on at least 3 ARRSE threads. General conclusion was a resounding: YES!

Can we move on to a new topic?
 
#25
parapauk said:
So this is an argument in which the real world on the purpose of these missiles is of no importance? Very convenient.
Not at all. It is a non-argument because the offensive nature of the Russian missiles is implicit in the discussion I propose. Poland is not under threat if the Russian missiles are only defensive, not so?

See? So keen to shift the discussion to Russia is bad, Russia is bad, ad nauseum - you miss the point.

parapauk said:
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.
How has it died?
 
#26
Poland is only putting itself in Russia's harm if the US/Russia start exchanging sunshine. It doesn't really matter if you're a target or not in a situation like that because we're all screwed either way.
 
#27
clownbasher said:
Disingenuous, whitecity. As usual.
How so? I started the thread and chose the title: Poland. Look what you've brought on yourself...

I'm fairly confident what sort of discussion I hoped to generate. :)
 
#28
ghost_us said:
Being part of a multinational force doesn't make you an aggressive nation. Polands (peak) 2,500 troops in Iraq is hardly an aggressive invasion.
Poland was one of just 5 states that provided forces for the initial invasion. A military action against another sovereign state who had no quarrel with Poland.

Not aggressive. Hmmmm!

That's like saying that Russia wasn't showing any aggressive intent against Georgia... :x

ghost_us said:
Defense missles are, well, defensive. The missiles Russia is relocating are offensive in nature meant to threaten a bully it's neighbor. There's no getting around that.
That is implicitly understood in my discussion leader.

ghost_us said:
Poland, putting itself at risk from Russia is a lot like a mafia informant putting themselves in harms way for testifying against the mob. If Poland is attacked by Russia for putting up defenses, then it is Russia who is to blame for the attack, not Poland.
Don't dispute that either. The point I'm making is that if Russia poses a 'real' threat now (and that's another argument entirely), a threat that didn't exist previously, has Poland increased it's own threat level for the sake of helping the US lower its own threat level.

ghost_us said:
Russia is quickly putting NATO back up on the map and making it significant again.
Maybe. Maybe not.
 
#29
whitecity said:
parapauk said:
So this is an argument in which the real world on the purpose of these missiles is of no importance? Very convenient.
Not at all. It is a non-argument because the offensive nature of the Russian missiles is implicit in the discussion I propose. Poland is not under threat if the Russian missiles are only defensive, not so?

See? So keen to shift the discussion to Russia is bad, Russia is bad, ad nauseum - you miss the point.

parapauk said:
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.
How has it died?
No opposition, a media owned by Gazprom ad co., and now the ground clearly being laid for another go by Putin from 2012 to 2024. Which of course the Russians will lap up: continued prosperity? All hail Putin! everyting starts to go south? It's the west's fault! Only Putin can save us! All with no decenting voices to point out that Putin can neither take the credit for the post-2000 boom nor save them from the demographic, economic and social collapse to come.
 
#30
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/...
That's an odd thread title.

Well you might want to read up on the Soviet occupation of Poland and Russian/Polish relations historically. Some exceptionally nasty stuff, tends to leave a bitter aftertaste.

(To be fair the Poles have historically done a few nasty things to Russians as well.)

The point is these two dogs have a history of not getting along.
 
#31
GrumpyGit said:
Don't suppose the Poles mind a bit, they are all living in Slough!!
Nope, they are not in Slough. I heard today that if they get laid off over here they can claim job seekers allowance even if they go back to Poland.

About 120,000 went back last year according to a New Liebear report, I wonder why.

More, they can claim child benefit for their children in Poland whilst working here. Light touch paper........

A Euro rule apparently.
 
#33
whitecity said:
Virgil said:
That's an odd thread title.
Why?
I think 'Russia, look what you brought on yourself would be just as valid'.

But really the important thing is, what do you think about my new sig?
 
#34
Poland. Look what you've brought on yourself... -- is pretty accurate: it is in Polish nature to seek immediate profit; Poles didn't ask themselves "Do we need this "shield?", they asked "How profitably can we sell ourselves?" hence lots of haggling with the US while ignoring repeated warnings from Russia about the consequences. Btw, parapauk Russia was trying to make Poland see light from the day the US came up with the idea to militarise Eastern Europe, so your "he was so brave that he decided to announce all this on the one day of the year no one would be paying attension," is far off the mark!
By contrast, in Czech Republic people asked themselves "Do we need this "shield?" and came to the conclusion they don't need it, hence mass protests that were duly ignored by Czech democratic government.

parapauk: "And I note that the death of Russian democracy..." I read carefully what you wrote on democracy and decided not to rain on your parade since you've done a lot of work and put your heart into it, etc., etc. But you still didn't give your definition of "democracy": ancient Athens invented democracy, yet the only people permitted to express their opinion to influence state policies were adult, free males; according to US Ukraine is democratic yet its president came to power in an unconstitutional coup; In Japan one party remains in power for half a century now; democracy in Britain is not the same as democracy in Italy; and look at the USA: it was considered democratic in the 18-th century when women didn't have rights, slavery was a way of life and genocide of the indigenous population -- a state policy; USA is still considered a democracy... So, what is democracy? If it's government "of the people, by the people, and for the people," then just about every country in the world is democratic to a certain extent.
 
#35
Virgil said:
whitecity said:
Virgil said:
That's an odd thread title.
Why?
I think 'Russia, look what you brought on yourself would be just as valid'.
That may be true.

But consider this. Poland has agreed to accept part of a ABM defence system that is only able to defend the US from missiles launched from Iran / Korea etc etc. They have negotiated a battalion of Patriot too, but that's an add on.

In return, the Russians have decided to redeploy offensive missiles to target this site. Thus, the Russian threat to Poland has significantly increased for what in return: the US can sleep soundly?

Good deal for Poland or not?

Could all be a complete storm in a teacup - as I suspect it is. But I bet NATO and the US will have plenty to say about this shortly.

Virgil said:
But really the important thing is, what do you think about my new sig?
Doubt he'll make the slightest difference as far as 90% of the world is concerned compared to McCain. But if you want to impress me with your signature, how about a montage of all these Russian strippers you've got to know. :)
 
#36
parapauk said:
whitecity said:
parapauk said:
So this is an argument in which the real world on the purpose of these missiles is of no importance? Very convenient.
Not at all. It is a non-argument because the offensive nature of the Russian missiles is implicit in the discussion I propose. Poland is not under threat if the Russian missiles are only defensive, not so?

See? So keen to shift the discussion to Russia is bad, Russia is bad, ad nauseum - you miss the point.

parapauk said:
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.
How has it died?
No opposition, a media owned by Gazprom ad co., and now the ground clearly being laid for another go by Putin from 2012 to 2024. Which of course the Russians will lap up: continued prosperity? All hail Putin! everyting starts to go south? It's the west's fault! Only Putin can save us! All with no decenting voices to point out that Putin can neither take the credit for the post-2000 boom nor save them from the demographic, economic and social collapse to come.
1. [edit] Major parties in the Russian State DumaUnited Russia (Единая Россия, Yedinaya Rossiya)
Communist Party of the Russian Federation (Коммунистическая партия Российской Федерации, Kommunisticheskaya partiya Rossiyskoy Federatsii)
Liberal Democratic Party of Russia (Либерально-Демократическая Партия России (ЛДПР), Liberal’no-Demokraticheskaya Partiya Rossii (LDPR))
Fair Russia (Справедли́вая Росси́я: Ро́дина/Пенсионе́ры/Жизнь, Spravedlivaya Rossiya: Rodina/Pensionery/Zhizn)

[edit] Other Prominent PartiesCitizens' Force (Гражданская Сила, Grazhdanskaya Sila)
Democratic Party of Russia (Демократическая партия России, Demokraticheskaya partiya Rossii)
Patriots of Russia (Патриоты России, Patrioty Rossii)
Peace and Unity (Российская политическая партия Мира и Единства, Rossiyskaya politicheskaya partiya Mira i Edinstva)
People's Union (Народный Союз, Narodnyi Soyuz)
Russian Ecological Party "The Greens" (Российская экологическая партия «Зеленые», Rossiiskaya ekologicheskaya partiya "Zyelyonyye")
Russian Social Justice Party (Российская Партия Справедливости, Rossiyskaya Partiya Spravedlivosti)
Union of Right Forces (Союз Правых Сил, Soyuz Pravykh Sil)
Yabloko (Российская Демократическая Партия "Яблоко", Rossiyskaya Demokraticheskaya Partiya "Yabloko")

For the full list of political parties in Russia see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_parties_in_Russia


2. "As of 2006 there were more than 58,000 periodicals, 14,000 electronic media, and 5,500 broadcasting companies, and the states share in the newspaper and journal market is estimated to be less than 10%. Its share in electronic media is even smaller.[1]

As stated by BBC, two of the three main federal channels Channel One and Russia TV are controlled by the government controls while state-controlled energy giant Gazprom owns NTV[2]." --- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_freedom_in_Russia

3. And since Russia is democratic state, it's up to its citizens to decide whom to vote for or listen to. The choice is theirs, not that of US or EU, or parapauk.
 
#37
Domovoy said:
Poland. Look what you've brought on yourself... -- is pretty accurate: it is in Polish nature to seek immediate profit; Poles didn't ask themselves "Do we need this "shield?", they asked "How profitably can we sell ourselves?" hence lots of haggling with the US while ignoring repeated warnings from Russia about the consequences. Btw, parapauk Russia was trying to make Poland see light from the day the US came up with the idea to militarise Eastern Europe, so your "he was so brave that he decided to announce all this on the one day of the year no one would be paying attension," is far off the mark!
By contrast, in Czech Republic people asked themselves "Do we need this "shield?" and came to the conclusion they don't need it, hence mass protests that were duly ignored by Czech democratic government.

parapauk: "And I note that the death of Russian democracy..." I read carefully what you wrote on democracy and decided not to rain on your parade since you've done a lot of work and put your heart into it, etc., etc. But you still didn't give your definition of "democracy": ancient Athens invented democracy, yet the only people permitted to express their opinion to influence state policies were adult, free males; according to US Ukraine is democratic yet its president came to power in an unconstitutional coup; In Japan one party remains in power for half a century now; democracy in Britain is not the same as democracy in Italy; and look at the USA: it was considered democratic in the 18-th century when women didn't have rights, slavery was a way of life and genocide of the indigenous population -- a state policy; USA is still considered a democracy... So, what is democracy? If it's government "of the people, by the people, and for the people," then just about every country in the world is democratic to a certain extent.
If you think I'm going to give a high-level analysis of democracy to someone who explains a complex geostrategic situation by the use of crass racial and national stereotyping, you've obviously mistaken me for someone with time to waste.
 
#39
whitecity said:
Virgil said:
But really the important thing is, what do you think about my new sig?
Doubt he'll make the slightest difference as far as 90% of the world is concerned compared to McCain. But if you want to impress me with your signature, how about a montage of all these Russian strippers you've got to know. :)
I actually have some photos of some of the girls in storage. A good place for them to stay I think.

As for my sig, I think the election of Obama wipes away much of the negatives of Bush's US almost overnight, dispels some lingering racist myths and has garnered goodwill in places as varied as Germany to Africa to Latin America. On reading the foreign press you'd think the Messiah had been elected.

My point is his presence is a powerful foreign policy card to play--if he can maintain that aura.
 
#40
Domovoy said:
Virgil said:
whitecity said:
Virgil said:
That's an odd thread title.
Why?
I think 'Russia, look what you brought on yourself would be just as valid'.

But really the important thing is, what do you think about my new sig?
:? I thought America had the Messiah as president since 2001?!
No, only in the Red states.
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top