New Cold War Arm's Race??

[jthieme]

Now we all know Russia likes to flex it's muscles when dealing with it's military but do you think that the new Russian Bomber flyovers near Alaska and UK are harmless rhetoric in response to the US's stance on missile defense?

To elaborate slightly on this, I mean: Does the US's hard line approach to the missile shield that it wants to implement into eastern Europe dictate to the Russians that we are OK with beginning a new arm's race with them?

If there are any Russians out there I would love to get your perspective on this. I am in no way trying to start a US vs. Russia thread here, I'm just interested what the media in other countries are saying about this topic. And with so many people from so many countries, and so many different perspectives; I would love to hear what you all think.

Thanks!

 

[F-15 Eagle]

Now we all know Russia likes to flex it's muscles when dealing with it's military but do you think that the new Russian Bomber flyovers near Alaska and UK are harmless rhetoric in response to the US's stance on missile defense?

To elaborate slightly on this, I mean: Does the US's hard line approach to the missile shield that it wants to implement into eastern Europe dictate to the Russians that we are OK with beginning a new arm's race with them?

If there are any Russians out there I would love to get your perspective on this. I am in no way trying to start a US vs. Russia thread here, I'm just interested what the media in other countries are saying about this topic. And with so many people from so many countries, and so many different perspectives; I would love to hear what you all think.

Thanks!

The Russians would have done the same thing even if we did not set up missile defense systems in Poland and I can't remember the other country but yeh it's just an excuse for the Russians.

 

[Izzy1]

F-15 Eagle - Do you see the Russians as a force of stability?

Can the EU deal with the Russians? In your opion?

 

[drandul]

Now we all know Russia likes to flex it's muscles when dealing with it's military but do you think that the new Russian Bomber flyovers near Alaska and UK are harmless rhetoric in response to the US's stance on missile defense?

To elaborate slightly on this, I mean: Does the US's hard line approach to the missile shield that it wants to implement into eastern Europe dictate to the Russians that we are OK with beginning a new arm's race with them?

If there are any Russians out there I would love to get your perspective on this. I am in no way trying to start a US vs. Russia thread here, I'm just interested what the media in other countries are saying about this topic. And with so many people from so many countries, and so many different perspectives; I would love to hear what you all think.

Thanks!

Now it's clear what US newer stoped arm race. - even in 80- 90. So actually missile defence- nothing new. Right now Russia have some abilities to say "No". Europe seems does not have it already. Otherwise it would prefer NATO system or cooperated Europe- US system.
Actuallly , if we look at history of question - this operation with "US missile defence" is kind of intrusion to arms market. Timing is qite good - as united Europe is weak in decision making. And eastern Europe states like especially Poland more or less under US control.
This kind of system will give to US several points:
1 - ability to control air space over whole Europe , eastern part of Russia and baltic sea.
2- ability to have station of deep EMF reconnaissance
3 - to stop Euro- Russian program of anti- missile system.
4 - ability to have devisions of some sort of missile systems with unknown capability in close distance to Russia. - I bet only few specialists can see the difference between ballistic missile and antimissile.
It's clear that such kind of activity will give US more control over Europe.
Current Russian Government is extrimely pragmatic. And major goals is economical stability. Even to the prejudice of instant people well-being. It not going to rebuild all economics to feed arm race any more - lessons of USSR are well known. And I worry that we will see lessons of US soon as well.
Already now US economy can not support Iraqi and Afganistan missions. National debt is far more than it ever could be settle.
Concerning flyovers - if you have strategic aviation - you need to train it and keep in good shape. No one wanders that US cariers patrols ocean - not jast staing in harbours.

 

[jthieme]

I agree that the US wants more control over Europe, but I believe that stems from the fact that the EU is probably one of the worst decision making bodies next the UN. Both entities are so afraid of their own shadows that that neither one will ever make tough decisions in the apparent fear that they will offend someone/some culture. God forbid they make actions that might seem offensive to some. But this is why the US wants more control, if they (and I mean EU) will not take proper steps to defend themselves and their interests, which are also some the US's interests, the US needs to step up. This is mostly due to the fact of EU disarmament. If a country refuses to maintain it's military or defend itself countries will take from you and take advantage of you. The US is a perfect example of that failed policy in the 1990's.

Also in response to your point of the USA's debt. That is absolutely wrong. The US debt structure is being paid off at a faster rate that what was planned in early 2001. That means that the debt is going down. The US CAN afford the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, and WILL BE ABLE to fund current operations. Yes the war is expensive, and yes, people will say the US can not afford it, but that stems from the fact that wars are never popular and politicians love to spark controversy.

I would like to cite references to prove my deficit point, but I don't have 15 posts on the forum yet so I can not provide references. Sorry everyone, but with a simple google search, you can find US budget deficit numbers that supplement my point.


And what lessons of the US are you referring to by the way?

 

[Ophir]

In Russia, the US missile defence project in Eastern Europe isn’t viewed kindly; rather it is considered a provocation on par with trying to entice Ukraine and Georgia into joining the NATO. Indeed, the development of a system which can potentially affect the strategic nuclear balance existing between our countries cannot be welcomed here. The renewed activity of our long-range bomber fleet shows to the US that, in the words of Anatol Lieven, ‘[T]his move is not cost-free and shows the Russian population that the government is still acting toughly to defend Russian prestige abroad. It is depressing but it is not a new cold war.’

Indeed, it is not a new cold war... yet. However, it is prudent to admit that the US and Russia have failed to establish a meaningful and mutually satisfying relationship puring the post-Soviet period. Maybe we should get ourselves a lobby, rivalling the Israel and the KSA ones, in Washington?

 

[jthieme]

In Russia, the US missile defence project in Eastern Europe isn’t viewed kindly; rather it is considered a provocation on par with trying to entice Ukraine and Georgia into joining the NATO. Indeed, the development of a system which can potentially affect the strategic nuclear balance existing between our countries cannot be welcomed here. The renewed activity of our long-range bomber fleet shows to the US that, in the words of Anatol Lieven, ‘[T]his move is not cost-free and shows the Russian population that the government is still acting toughly to defend Russian prestige abroad. It is depressing but it is not a new cold war.’

Indeed, it is not a new cold war... yet. However, it is prudent to admit that the US and Russia have failed to establish a meaningful and mutually satisfying relationship puring the post-Soviet period. Maybe we should get ourselves a lobby, rivalling the Israel and the KSA ones, in Washington?

Point well taken. It makes complete sense that by one side disrupting the other's offensive capabilities (or defensive for matter), would be taken as sign of proving dominance over the other. I also agree that US-Russian relations have suffered in the past 5 years. But Russian politics do not coincide with western European or western hemisphere style democracy. As Russia becomes more and more authoritarian (reminiscent of the Soviet era) , it in essence is secluding itself from other pro-democracy countries. When leaders fail to relinquish power, it is often seen as a sign of intolerance. And if that is the case, how do you negotiate with that intolerance? By being submissive?

Now I'm not placing all of the blame with Russia, US has also taken as hard line stance as Russia has. Both countries seem to want to be "toeing the line" so to speak. Neither country wants or needs an arms race, but I don't think they are too far from the concept becoming a reality.

 

[jthieme]

Can the EU deal with the Russians? In your opion?[/QUOTE]

No. By nature the EU is unable to deal with the Russians. It's as useless as the UN is in dealing with any type of aggression. I would go as far as to say that the UN should be dissolved. All it is, is cesspool for corruption and a great venue for money laundering.

 

[Ophir]

Point well taken. It makes complete sense that by one side disrupting the other's offensive capabilities (or defensive for matter), would be taken as sign of proving dominance over the other. I also agree that US-Russian relations have suffered in the past 5 years. But Russian politics do not coincide with western European or western hemisphere style democracy. As Russia becomes more and more authoritarian (reminiscent of the Soviet era) , it in essence is secluding itself from other pro-democracy countries. When leaders fail to relinquish power, it is often seen as a sign of intolerance. And if that is the case, how do you negotiate with that intolerance? By being submissive?

With all due respect, I do not think that our politics, authoritarian as they may well be, are much worse than the politics of Saudi Arabia, and I don't think that the manner of presidential succession in Russia is the business of the US. The US has a proven track record of working with and providing assistance to lots of regimes that were/are hardly shining beacons of democracy of human rights; why not try to reach to us instead of trying to encircle us with new NATO members and new bases? Why not reaeal, for example, Jackson-Vanik and the infamous PL 86-90 which equates 'Russian' with 'Communist' and calls for liberation of 'Cossackia' and 'Idel-Ural'? OK, I'm deep into 'World Affairs' territory now...

Now I'm not placing all of the blame with Russia, US has also taken as hard line stance as Russia has. Both countries seem to want to be "toeing the line" so to speak. Neither country wants or needs an arms race, but I don't think they are too far from the concept becoming a reality.

I'd say that both of our countries have their hands full of problems; hope our military-political leaderships won't add another one.

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

In Russia, the US missile defence project in Eastern Europe isn’t viewed kindly; rather it is considered a provocation on par with trying to entice Ukraine and Georgia into joining the NATO. Indeed, the development of a system which can potentially affect the strategic nuclear balance existing between our countries cannot be welcomed here. The renewed activity of our long-range bomber fleet shows to the US that, in the words of Anatol Lieven, ‘[T]his move is not cost-free and shows the Russian population that the government is still acting toughly to defend Russian prestige abroad. It is depressing but it is not a new cold war.’

Indeed, it is not a new cold war... yet. However, it is prudent to admit that the US and Russia have failed to establish a meaningful and mutually satisfying relationship puring the post-Soviet period. Maybe we should get ourselves a lobby, rivalling the Israel and the KSA ones, in Washington?

Ophir, you cant really reguard this system as a real threat to russian strategic nuclear power can you??? There are going to be 12 interceptors, is that going to actually have any effect at all on a nuclear exchange between you guys and NATO??? The argument that this will somehow change the strategic ballance simply doesent hold water in reality. Perhaps its just the old addage that old habbits die hard, and russian-american suspition die's hard too. Seems to me that this topic is being manipulated somewhat by the powers that be, making it into something its not. Do you realise the infestructure needed for a system actually large enough to have a significant effect on a russian strategic missile launch? believe me you'd know about it.

As far as the russians being unhappy that the US is initiating a major defence system in eastern europe, it has no real basing in current reality. Said nations have signed a mutual defence treaty with the US, they are very close allies. The fact that since 1945 this area was considered (by the soveits anyway) to be under a russian sphere of influence. However thats a cold war mentality, and if said mentality is causing resentment in russia then its not really reasonable to blame the americans. You guys should just ajust the geostrategic perception of yourselves, because it is slightly out of date.

 

[Ophir]

Ophir, you cant really reguard this system as a real threat to russian strategic nuclear power can you??? There are going to be 12 interceptors, is that going to actually have any effect at all on a nuclear exchange between you guys and NATO??? The argument that this will somehow change the strategic ballance simply doesent hold water in reality. Perhaps its just the old addage that old habbits die hard, and russian-american suspition die's hard too. Seems to me that this topic is being manipulated somewhat by the powers that be, making it into something its not. Do you realise the infestructure needed for a system actually large enough to have a significant effect on a russian strategic missile launch? believe me you'd know about it.

It is not my fault that any future US missile defence system is regarded in Russia as a provocation -- our strategists grew used to the ABM treaty of good memory, which was pretty explicit in banning these kinds of developments which are now afoot in Eastern Europe. I am aware that the topic is manipulated, but believe me, anti-American sentiment is pretty strong in Russia, as well as in many other parts of the world, and it really doesn't need much encouragement.

As far as the russians being unhappy that the US is initiating a major defence system in eastern europe, it has no real basing in current reality.

Aye, the ABMT is now a thing from a distant past.

Said nations have signed a mutual defence treaty with the US, they are very close allies. The fact that since 1945 this area was considered (by the soveits anyway) to be under a russian sphere of influence. However thats a cold war mentality, and if said mentality is causing resentment in russia then its not really reasonable to blame the americans. You guys should just ajust the geostrategic perception of yourselves, because it is slightly out of date.

Our geostrategic perception is grounded in the fact that our allies of yesterday are becoming American allies of tomorrow; trust me, this kind of situation may breed lots and lots of resentment.

I'd like to see a relationship of mutual trust and cooperation in defence sphere between the US and Russia; it isn't going to happen, though.

 

[jthieme]

With all due respect, I do not think that our politics, authoritarian as they may well be, are much worse than the politics of Saudi Arabia, and I don't think that the manner of presidential succession in Russia is the business of the US. The US has a proven track record of working with and providing assistance to lots of regimes that were/are hardly shining beacons of democracy of human rights; why not try to reach to us instead of trying to encircle us with new NATO members and new bases? Why not reaeal, for example, Jackson-Vanik and the infamous PL 86-90 which equates 'Russian' with 'Communist' and calls for liberation of 'Cossackia' and 'Idel-Ural'? OK, I'm deep into 'World Affairs' territory now...


I'd say that both of our countries have their hands full of problems; hope our military-political leaderships won't add another one.

That was my point earlier about reaching out to Russia. How do you reach out to authoritarian style leaders. The only way is through respect. By encircling Russia with new pro-west style democracies and NATO allies, Russia will have to respect the circle of influence it will have.

"You can get a lot more with with a kind word and a gun, than you can with just a kind word." -AL Capone.

Thought I would humor the discussion a little bit with a gangster quote, but it still holds true. USA can not simply extend a helping hand to anyone if they do not respect the capabilities it has available to it if the other side does not make good on promises or agreements. I'm not saying that Russia has backed out of agreements, only saying that the more aggressive Russia becomes, it needs to realize that other players will not simply give in to its demands that it may make in the future. Also, the more aggressive it becomes, the more aggressive other countries might become as a result. The concepts in Machiavelli's "The Prince" would be very prudent now. Is it better to be loved or feared?

And with all due respect, Russian Presidential matters are of everyone's business and concern. Russia is a very influential player on world politics(and not to mention emerging democracies), and style of your government directly coincides with the level of "political credit" your country has. Russia has a sphere of influence that it displays on many countries. There is a HUGE difference between the presidential elections of Switzerland and the presidential elections of Russia, especially since Russia is obviously nuclear. The style of rule is directly related to the world's perception on its policies.

Arm's races are usually started in this way.

 

[Ophir]

That was my point earlier about reaching out to Russia. How do you reach out to authoritarian style leaders. The only way is through respect. By encircling Russia with new pro-west style democracies and NATO allies, Russia will have to respect the circle of influence it will have.

So, you think that it is most desirable to have us encircled and to make us respect our circle of influence, limited to our own borders, in Pax Americana? I wonder what would you say about US sphere of interests limited by the borders of Canada and Mexico. I guess you'd baulk at this perspective, unless you're a dyed-in-the-wool libertarian or anarchist.

"You can get a lot more with with a kind word and a gun, than you can with just a kind word." -AL Capone.

Thought I would humor the discussion a little bit with a gangster quote, but it still holds true

What, do you think, should the US get from us with a gun and and a kind word?

USA can not simply extend a helping hand to anyone if they do not respect the capabilities it has available to it if the other side does not make good on promises or agreements.

I don't think that Russia is asking for a helping hand.

I'm not saying that Russia has backed out of agreements, only saying that the more aggressive Russia becomes, it needs to realize that other players will not simply give in to its demands that it may make in the future. Also, the more aggressive it becomes, the more aggressive other countries might become as a result.

The recent Russian operations in Afghanistan and Iraq and the coming Russian attack upon Iran surely show our aggressiveness and make certain the unwilingness of other countries to acquiesce to our demands.

And with all due respect, Russian Presidential matters are of everyone's business and concern. Russia is a very influential player on world politics(and not to mention emerging democracies), and style of your government directly coincides with the level of "political credit" your country has.

Again, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia has a pretty medieval structure of government, but I haven't heard anyone protesting Abdullah succeeding Fahd.

Russia has a sphere of influence that it displays on many countries. There is a HUGE difference between the presidential elections of Switzerland and the presidential elections of Russia. The style of rule is directly related to the world's perception on its policies.

Given the preceding statement that Russia's sphere of influence ought to be limited to our own borders, I'd venture to say that it is better to leave us with our own style of government to develop -- there are lots of systems of government, after all.

Disclaimer: I'm not a fan of Mr Putin and I think that he ought to step aside and give way to another generation of leaders, but he is at present supported by a clear majority of Russians.

 

[Mr Ignorant]

Napoleonic dreams........

Mod: Of course I can guess by your nick that you have been ignorant to the rules of DT as well. Oneliners & comments that do not generate quality discussion or do not generate discussions at all are not allowed.

This is your 1st breach, 2 more & you would be refered for a week long ban to Admin & Super mod.

-SABRE

 

[Mr Ignorant]

I should have added at least a few more paragraphs. Well, since I breached the rules unintentionally, I shall by way of apology, offer up my own views right now.



First up, given the history of Europe as a prime Hotbed of War in the last century, I don't think the Russians in general take kindly to any expansion east of previous "Warsaw Pact" Countries. Economically or Militarily. If anything, evidence of a shift in Russian attitudes to Western European rhetoric is somewhat lacking, the only change if we can call it that, were the proposed citing of US Missile bases in the Czech Republic.

Secondly, economics. The Russians now have the upper hand in view of their robust economy. Russian Multinational interest in primary resources is, increasing to say the least. Sakhalin 2 exemplifies the bear like approach to the Oil Industry. The fact that the Russians impose their aggressive approach is nothing new, a sovereign state like Russia can be aggressive to anyone within its borders. As they say, it is now a privilege to do business in Russia, not a right as some assume.

There is no respect to the "encirclement" philosophy. It is a devalued approach, one on which the Russians would happily engage in another Mini Cold War. Currently the US is expending too much resources, not just militarily but economically in the Middle East. America Divisions deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan retains the primary aim of reducing Client Nations influence in any fora, and the will to do so, is the price and produce of Oil. A higher price, bigger profits, a low price even more profits. In any case, I fear Osama Bin Laden has tied American politics to Iraq, and in that bogdowned quagmire, the Russians can exercise their sovereignty in their borders without any fear or hindrance, either by empty rhetoric or not.

And anyway, I tend to be extremely suspicious of discussions bordering on "dominating and subjugating" Russia. It was Hitler's Napoleonic Dream and for some strange reason, it continues to be one for the few.

My thanks to Sabre for the reminder.

Mr Ignorant

 

[Chrom]

Lets look at "proven" democracies which is liked by USA in comparasion with Russia:

1. Poland - Presidents and Premier-Minister. They are not from the same party. They are not just friends. They are not even just relatives. Zwillings as both President and Premier-Minister. Enouth said...

2. Georgia - 99% votes for Saakashvilli on last election... the result even USSR communist would be proud of... Numerous political assasinations (including premier-minister), all opposition either jailed or emigrated, bussinessmans OFICIALLY "taxed" by first jailing and THEN demanding money without any court decisions, whole goverment OFFICIALY god paid by western funds...
"An examplary democracy" according to USA.

3. Iraq - another "example of democracy" for Russia - according to USA.

4. Italy - 90% of all medias belonging to one man. Surprisengly, the very same man who got elected several times in row...

5. Ukraina - circus in all greatness.

6. Japan - the very SAME party hold majority and form goverment for the last 50 years.

7. England - great traditions without a doubt. However, Braun is successor
of Blair - and Blair appointed him without much elections...

8. USA - not only 2 parties are more or less "much the same". Last time a candidate which got 500k votes LESS got elected...
And well, Mr. Bush 1st and Mr. Bush 2nd... Father and Son... We all know how loud would West cry if something like that happened in "authoritarian" Russia.
Moreover, one of main candidates was/is wife of previous president...
Numerous violations of humans rights, proved assasinations of foreign leaders, proved kidnapping abroad without court sanction including kidnapping from EU... etc, etc.

Saidi Arabia and Arabia Emirates... great USA allies. Great democracies...

That is by far not complete list of examples, which Russia should follow to become "true democracy".

P.S. Personally, i think only Scandinavian countries got something close to "true democracy".

 

[mysterious]

Democracy is a relative term in present day world. It is not the 'perfect' form of government but it is the best available when compared to the other forms prevalent today. Russia does not fare well in that department. Elite oligarchs hold power at all times.

 

[Chrom]

Democracy is a relative term in present day world. It is not the 'perfect' form of government but it is the best available when compared to the other forms prevalent today. Russia does not fare well in that department. Elite oligarchs hold power at all times.

Ya, Russia didnt not fare well. Here i'm completely agree. But as always, compared to WHAT?
Moreover, surprisengly (or not) West generally support corrupt elite oligarchs and other destructive forces - instead of true democracy. West usually criticise Russia for things what West itself do not fully obey. They declare Russia "athoritarian" and "not democratic" by standards what noone else fully comply. They demand Russia to follow strict rules what most other "democratic" countries do not fully follow.

As such, Russia is of course not fully democratic, human right suffers, etc. But according to the very same standards Poland, Italy, Georgia, etc - are even less democratic. USA respect even less human rights.

This is reason why absolutely most russians support Putin and disdain Yeltsin. They feel what under Putin Russia became MORE democratic and human rights respecting for average citizen. They feel what West support political forces what are much LESS democratic than current ones in power.

 

[drandul]

Yes- Russia did not fare welll especcially in terms of self advertising.
It's more or less clear that "Democracy" is kind of brand. And this brand is promoted in western countries in the way that anything labled with it is better than other brands.
In each country there are several or one groups of comercial interests. Some times thay have similar goals some times opposite. And I would say that only power(cash) ratio is major factor which really affects the political system or situation in any country- there is no difference- US or Russia.
Concerning Russian situation I think that Putin actually uses it's huge power in qite reasonable way. And it seems he tring to find balance between chaos and low efficiency of liberal democracy in Russian conditions and some sort of western two-party system. In the same time he tries to protect Russian political process from influences of foreign groups of interest.
The major concern for west is Russian independence and attempts to protect it's interests. That is really bad and unacceptable. If it bad- it's not democracy for sure!
Concerned 12 antimissiles - is not a problem for Russian BMs. - yes- 12 is not a problem. But I bet that after Poland next 20 missiles will be in Georgia, other 9 in Kosovo. 23 in Ajerbajan. And Japan will have some as well. - There are real Democracies in those states and all population would appreciate US for such unexampled oppartunity. Because Iran is really good in missile tech and have great idea and detailed plan how to blow up US, Europe an may be Island as well. (Why not?).
I just want to say- all that politics is total hypocrisy. Distrust and anger is very easy to start but extreamly difficult to suppres.

 

[drandul]

Can the EU deal with the Russians? In your opion?

No. By nature the EU is unable to deal with the Russians. It's as useless as the UN is in dealing with any type of aggression. I would go as far as to say that the UN should be dissolved. All it is, is cesspool for corruption and a great venue for money laundering.[/QUOTE]

That kind of agression? Seems to me that all that fear of Russia is more artificial.
UN is only one really international organisation what we have. I agree that it's compleatly uneffective. But what is alternative? - NATO ? WTO? I really doubt. Nato is just a shadow and compleatly depends on US.