The Ukraine may be in the Commonwealth of Independent States, but it is its own country and thus not Russian territory. If the missile were intercepted low enough as to be in Ukrainian airspace, it would be a Ukrainian problem rather than a Russian problem. If it were a Russian missile, then of course Russia would presumably already be a belligerent and thus Ukraine (and/or Poland, if that's the intended target) would be right to complain. If the interception is in outer space, then that's international territory and thus it should be a matter for the shooting country and the target country.
Whats everyone take on the European missile shield?
- Thread starter Comrade69
- Start date
The Ukraine may be in the Commonwealth of Independent States, but it is its own country and thus not Russian territory. If the missile were intercepted low enough as to be in Ukrainian airspace, it would be a Ukrainian problem rather than a Russian problem. If it were a Russian missile, then of course Russia would presumably already be a belligerent and thus Ukraine (and/or Poland, if that's the intended target) would be right to complain. If the interception is in outer space, then that's international territory and thus it should be a matter for the shooting country and the target country.
Armoredpriapism
New Member
Russia would probably rather not spend a lot of money beefing up its nuclear arsenal technology. If it see it as an arms race issue I can see why it would take it very seriously. Regardless of whether it could win an arms race it probably would rather not have to invest massive resources just to keep a parody it feels it already has. But in order to maintain its deterrent it would have to be able to ensure that even if NATO pulled off a sneaky first strike (using more than ICBMs, mind you) or if America developed some new piece of technology, that Russia could still level every nation within NATO AND still have a credible deterrent against China, India, Iran, and every other country with a large expeditionary capability or nuclear forces.
It's not just about how many missiles could ideally be intercepted but also about being able to retaliate effectively after even the most ingenious NATO surprise attack so as to be above the designs of the worst case scenario.
Maybe what Russia wants as part of the negotiations is a thing that allows them to not have to begin an arms race. That's something the Americans wouldn't necessarily want to give the Russians as the west is in a better economic position than Russia and has an immensely greater combined GDP. The Russians and NATO all seem to think whatever they're arguing over is more important than missiles from Iran, otherwise, as both Russia and Europe would benefit from an integrated shield, they would work together on implementing one without being held up by bickering. Nuclear deterrence is one such thing more important than that.
It's not just about how many missiles could ideally be intercepted but also about being able to retaliate effectively after even the most ingenious NATO surprise attack so as to be above the designs of the worst case scenario.
Maybe what Russia wants as part of the negotiations is a thing that allows them to not have to begin an arms race. That's something the Americans wouldn't necessarily want to give the Russians as the west is in a better economic position than Russia and has an immensely greater combined GDP. The Russians and NATO all seem to think whatever they're arguing over is more important than missiles from Iran, otherwise, as both Russia and Europe would benefit from an integrated shield, they would work together on implementing one without being held up by bickering. Nuclear deterrence is one such thing more important than that.
Missile shield talks with U.S. ‘going nowhere’: Russia | News | National Post
The doesn't appear to have made an impression on the Russians, though. This is surely going to figure prominently in the upcoming Russian elections.
And yet, NATO seems upbeat..
http://en.rian.ru/world/20111003/167347841.html
U.S. Ambassador to Moscow John Beyrle said in an interview with Russian business daily Kommersant on Monday that Russia and the United States will sign an agreement on the information exchange system of the European missile shield during the NATO summit in Chicago.
The ambassador said the information exchange system will include an exchange of technology as well as two command centers aimed at tracking missile launches all over the world and analyzing possible threats.
Sampanviking
Banned Member
I think most people understand that the reset is dead in all but name. Mebvedev may have been in favour, but seems to have failed to deliver any concrete results (I can't think of any) from it.
Putin is far less keen to begin with and is unlikely to spend much time trying to resuscitate it.
Putin is far less keen to begin with and is unlikely to spend much time trying to resuscitate it.
Haavarla
Active Member
As the good progress with the Russians up at the Artic and Barent sea region, i hate to see this Missile shield sour the Nato/US relationship with Russia..
I'm personly not that big fan of that missile sheild anyway.
Norway trade with Russia and otherwise good relationship with Russia is at an all time high at the moment.
So if this missile shield mess up things between Norway and Russia, we risk going backwards on our cooperation up in Barent sea oil/gass agreements with Russia.
And will increase the tension in the Artic region, which i think is a step back for everybody..
Its a lose-lose situation for all..
I think that you are missing the point. Russia’s actions are not based on any real military necessity. The Russian leadership’s actions are designed to gain internal political support and to reinforce the Russia need to feel that they are still very important in the world. As was pointed out earlier by many people, the missile shield could not stop an attack from Russia, both because of the number of weapons they have could easily overwhelm it and for simple geographical reasons. The shield as it is designed poses no threat to their nuclear deterrent and it is very doubtful that it could ever be upgraded to be a threat to their deterrent. Even if you think Russia still needs to have a nuclear deterrent.
Frankly why would anybody that has a successful system want to attack it first? They have enemies I will grant you but their enemies do not at this point have nuclear arms. Their enemies are mainly internal groups or border disputes that they can handle without such weapons.
As to Iran, the problem is not that they will soon have nuclear weapons; within the world of the near future just about everyone will have nuclear weapons and that will be the reality. The problem is that with the murky leadership existing within Iran there is the great possibility of them acting crazy, because some of the people in it are simply crazy. The crazy people are capable of using nuclear weapons even if it means the destruction of their own country. I know that the very idea of crazy people having control of nuclear weapon is so frightening and unthinkable that you want to disregard the very real possibility that could be true but sometimes crazy people do come to power. Just check you history books. You are talking about a country, in the case of Iran, that does not have very many instructional checks and balances on the use of governmental power and the use of force inside or outside of any law.
Perhaps you have no experience with crazy people. I have had that unfortunate experience. With crazy people, they have a logic and a thinking process all their own which at time seems to make since under some circumstances but at other times is incomprehensible. To understand how a crazy person thinks you would have to be just as crazy as they are. Once you determine that someone is crazy you have to expect that they can and will do anything.
True but a general in the Iranian Revolutionary Guards recently hinted at the possibility of a preemptive strike at the systems radar installations in Turkey. This I think would still be losing fight for Iran due to as you say massive retaliation and it would hurt what ties they have with Turkey but the danger is they won't be rational. Still the missile shield would be overwhelmed during a nuclear exchange between Russia and the West.
Dmitriy Rogozin said it extremely accurately. I'm quoting here: [BMD is]"прежде всего, идеологический проект, а не ракеты" "first of all an ideological project, and not missiles", "Если ты в ПРО, то ты находишься внутри системы, ты свой. А если ты вне скобок, то ты чужой и, значит, эта система может рано или поздно развернуться против тебя" If you're inside the BMD, you're part of the system, you're one of the group, if you're outside it then you're a foreign element, and sooner or later this system might turn against you.
This is a spot on explanation of Russian desire to be included in the BMD. Current Russian leadership don't want to be outsiders. They want to be part of the club, part of the developed world, not a pariah power, or a giant rogue state with nuclear weapons and oil. This has been Russian motivation since the collapse of the USSR, indeed one of the major reasons for the collapse of the USSR. Russian elites want to be part of the global elites, part of the 1st world. They want to play cards at the same table as Britain, France, Germany, Italy, etc. Not at the table with China, Iran, North Korea, etc. This is why they bother to hold elections (however rigged and messed up), this is why they continue to cultivate good relations with various European powers, this is why they try so hard to get in on joint projects, be they soccer championships, Olympics, or space launches. This is why it is very dangerous to leave Russia out of the BMD. It will send the message that they are not wanted, that they can't play. Which is quite likely to lead to nasty responses, escalation of tensions, etc. And in my opinion the Europeans understand this, and have a certain amount of sympathy, but because the BMD is a US-led project, Russia is being forced to the side-lines. In all honesty this is very very bad in the long run.
If your analyses is correct and perhaps it is. They are not perusing their goal in a very smart way. To be included, as one of the primary decision makers, requires many things, and the first you must create trust and cooperation with your potential partners. I do not see how their actions can ever create trust based on this case and many other issues, where they have acted simply as only a spoiler. Also you cannot expect to be a big player in the game if you are not willing to put some skin (money, troops, diplomatic prestige, trade restrictions) in to the game.
To an outside observer, many of Russia’s actions in the international framework seem to be simply disruptive and they are disruptive without any obvious great advantage coming to Russia as a result of their behavior. It is like they are trying to say to the international community “you can’t do anything without our approval or we will sabotage it”. If that is the message they want to send or not, it is the one that is received. This is not the way to make friends or gain allies. Their way might have worked within the old soviet bloc but tit will not work today.
Russia can bring much to this particular issue in terms of technology and capability. The world's largest functioning strategic BMD system is the A-135, surrounding Moscow. They are also quite likely to be willing to put a lot of cash up front for this to happen. However, this is clearly not the problem. The problem is that the US is not willing to let Russia eat at the same table as everyone else. The BMD project has indeed a large ideological component, and it seems that inertial thinking has prevailed, in terms of keeping the Russians out of it.
I disagree. Russia has been very accommodating recently, including sanctions on Iran (and cancelling the S-300 deliveries), refusing Iskander-E deliveries to Syria, and allowing the UN resolution on Libya to pass. Russian cooperation on the issue of Afghanistan also has been quite noteworthy. Russia has even participated in the anti-piracy campaign, coordinating with NATO and the EU on it. At the same time Russia has attempted to build relations (quite successfully it seems) with the major European countries, like Germany, France, and Italy. Consider that Rheinmetall has recently gotten a nice contract to build a modern training facility at the Mulino polygon, consider the Mistral deal, consider the project of launching Soyuz rockets from the French space port on Kourou. These are just a handful of projects, mutually beneficial in nature, that are certainly valuable in and of themselves, but have been particularly actively pursued in an attempt to build closer bilateral relations with the major European players. The problem is the issue of blocs. Namely NATO, and to a lesser extent the EU. They, on an organizational and institutional level, are far less willing to play ball with Russia, and Russia is far less willing to cooperate with NATO, then it is with any of its constituent members.
Haavarla
Active Member
Spott on Feanor.
The Russian foreign Minister, Lavrov, stated at the negotiated Border deal With Norway in Barent sea, that " for some reason, it seems impossible to work with NATO on security matter, but working with seperate Nato members country are far more easier and pragmatic, both on trade and security issues"..
Do NATO with US in particular need to do an reorganisation prossess?
Cause to me NATO seems far to narrow sighted and with no future prospect on how to deal with Russia on security issues..
I think most of all the problems lies within US foreign policy, to find a middle way with Russia on the BMD would by many neo-conservative Republicans and Democrates be an humiliate failure and step back..
NATO was formed with the primary purpose of going to war with Russia. Is it surprising that they're having difficulties accepting Russia as an equal and a partner? Now that the Cold War has ended, NATO has lost much of its focus, and the mission in Afghanistan reflects this. Making Russia an scary outsider would do much to restoring unity in NATO, and faith in the US among the Europeans. Granted Russian actions certainly don't help, with their attempt to reassert the FSU states as a sphere of influence. But realistically, it's not like Georgia or Ukraine were good NATO and EU candidates, regardless of the Russian stance on the issue.
To be honest, it seems that the major European NATO players (save Britain) are sympathetic to Russian attempts to be accepted. The US however is not quite so willing. Part of it might be that US interests are global, and intersect Russian interests in many places, other then Europe and the Middle East. Part of it might be that Russia can become a source of what is traditionally the American niche in politics and strategic relations. For example if Russia is better at running space programs then the US, then Europe will turn to Russia for cooperation and joint ventures, leaving the US out. Whether this may be inevitable is a moot point, as the perception is more significant then the facts in motivating US position on the issue. I think this is at the heart of this situation, and while original Russian opposition to the BMD plan was nearsighted and knee-jerk reaction to any sort of US military presence, their latest offers have been well thought out, and real attempts to work with the US. All in all, the situation is looking worse and worse for all involved.
To be honest, it seems that the major European NATO players (save Britain) are sympathetic to Russian attempts to be accepted. The US however is not quite so willing. Part of it might be that US interests are global, and intersect Russian interests in many places, other then Europe and the Middle East. Part of it might be that Russia can become a source of what is traditionally the American niche in politics and strategic relations. For example if Russia is better at running space programs then the US, then Europe will turn to Russia for cooperation and joint ventures, leaving the US out. Whether this may be inevitable is a moot point, as the perception is more significant then the facts in motivating US position on the issue. I think this is at the heart of this situation, and while original Russian opposition to the BMD plan was nearsighted and knee-jerk reaction to any sort of US military presence, their latest offers have been well thought out, and real attempts to work with the US. All in all, the situation is looking worse and worse for all involved.
To be the "lesser evil" they need an internal enemy. They also need an external enemy to keep themselves popular, and to have someone to point fingers at. However as far as external enemies go, Georgia, radical Islam, and the Baltic States foot the bill quite nicely. The US can be added to the list, but only in popular imagination, rather then fact. We're wandering awfully deep into political discussion, so if anyone is interested in continuing this conversation we should take it to off-topic, as there is clearly more to be said.
To begin with, I do not claim to know or understand what is currently going on inside Russia; once again speaking only as an outside observer, it is not clear to me if Russia have come to a sustainable vision of what it wants for their future place in the world. Currently once again as an outside observer they seem to be more concerned with internal politics than international politics and it is their internal politics that is driving these events and those internal politics as not transparent to the outside world or to most of the Russian people.
I must disagree with your appraisal of the US position which I do understand. The US position has always been that it wishes to include Russia, if for no other reason that it is a significant power and would be most helpful in the job of trying to guide the world to a condition of peace and prosperity. A condition if achieved, the US thinks is in its best long term interest. The problem is of two kinds. One I am sure you will agree is that our two visions of a peaceful and prosperous world and how to achieve it are not in full aliment. And the other is that some but not all of the internal conditions within Russia must meet certain minimum international standards. It is not just the US which thinks that Russia has not modernized its intuitions sufficiently to become one of the leading player in fashioning the world of the future that we must all live in if we like it or not. The world would be much better if we both could work off the same page but so we haven’t been able to.
This is not the place to debate what those issues are or how to resolve them but only to acknowledge that those issues exist.
As to the Russian BMD system the A-135 surrounding Moscow. It may be the most extinctive one in in existence but its effectiveness is in doubt. I know this because it has not been rigorously tested enough, a very long, tenacious and expressive process that take years even if the hardware works up to expectations. A process that requires a lot more live firings against many different kinds of targets using many different attack profiles. And until it is, its effectiveness will be in doubt no matter what kind of technology it contains.
As to the issue of Russia’s cooperation which seems to come and go at times? To this humble observer it appears to more to be in the nature of tactical decisions made for short term tactical advantage than for any commitment of long term cooperation. Once again I emphasize that these are only impressions gained from their actions where their underlying motives are obscured. I do not know what their long term intent really is and so the response to their actions must be prudently be cautious.
As of NATO I must fully agree with you that it is a mess and may have out-lived its usefulness but it will hang around until there is a big enough failure of some kind to make everyone rethink the whole thing.
Using nuclear warheads on your ABM’s work fine enough on the first wave of the attack but they, for more reason than I care to count, so disrupt the sensor nets, of any and all kinds, that you cannot detect or track the flowing incoming waves. That is the reason that the US Sentinel ABM system was abandoned and that the current systems the US are building are of the kinetic hit to kill verity.
As for NATO, If Russia someday becomes a full member of the Europe Community in such a way as to no long seem ever to be a threat, NATO will probably be disbanded and rightly so. But as long as the United Nations does not have an enforcement arm of its own, something like NATO will be created to replace it. And hopefully it will be something better.