Putin: Russia could aim nukes at Ukraine

Putin: Russia could aim nukes at Ukraine

www.usatoday.com

MOSCOW (AP) — Russia could aim nuclear weapons at Ukraine if the former Soviet republic joins NATO and accepts the deployment of anti-missile defenses on its territory, President Vladimir Putin said Tuesday.
Putin spoke at a news conference in Moscow after four hours of talks with Ukrainian President Viktor Yushchenko, who has said joining the Western alliance is a priority for his country.

"That of course is Ukraine's internal process ... and we don't have the right, and we won't, interfere in this process," Putin said. But, he added, "that raises the question for Russia of the need for retaliatory actions."

"It's frightening not just to talk about, but even to think about, that in response to such deployment, the possibility of such deployments — and one can't theoretically exclude these deployments — that Russia will have to point its warheads at Ukrainian territory," he said.

(visit the link for the full news article)

Russia rears its head again. looks like to me that they are trying to start a conflict by continually prodding about NATO.

Thoughts? Comments?

www.usatoday.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

They REALLY don't like US missile defense in their back yard.

Bush is just as determined to have it.

Rock, meet hard place.

i do love how the US says that the defense systems are for protecting our allies from Iran, and not russia! what a laugh!

I told you on a precious thread, that any soveriegn which threatens the use of nukes should be wiped out. End of story.

The bully on the playground pushes people around until someone knocks his block off. Putin is that bully and should be treated accordingly

reply to post by Quazga


and if you did not know, someone on my other thread had a comment about what you had to say about these 'bullies'.

Neither of the countries hosting U.S. "defense" missiles needs those defense missiles for any reason. Realistically - if the ICBM's start flying the game is over, and everyone, including even the rogues like Iran and North Korea know this. The ABM systems are thus useless as defense weapons - because the biggest defense weapon are your own nukes that act as deterent to any attack on you or your allies with nukes.

So realistically the ABM systems act as just another "offensive" weapon, that are meant to neutralize your opponent's offensive capabilities should a nuclear exchange occur. And 10 missiles here, 10 missiles there may not seems like much - but consider the long term goals say 20 or 30 years ahead.


Any country that hosts the ABM, has to reasonably expect to be targeted by the country against whom the ABM is positioned. There is nothing defensive about these missiles. They are part of a larger strategy. If Ukraine is dumb enough to get into this game, they should assume all consequences.

And Ukraine is hardly concerned right now with Russia aiming nukes at them. It is more concerned about gas/oil supplies from Russia, which are basically Ukraine's lifeline in the winter - especially now that Russia no longer relies on trans-Ukraine pipeline network to bring energy supplies to Europe.

Ukraine's biggest problem is a domestic one. There is a major struggle in Ukrainian's parliament between Uschenko, Yanukovich, and Timoshenko. This struggle is what resulted in non-payment for Russian energy, indecision about budgetary priorities, the potential gas shut-off, and the future regarding NATO. Nothing is black and white anymore, and there are no good sides - you have three hostile and corrupt political factions fighting one another through policies which hurt no one but the people in Ukraine.

Remember behind every story on CNN or BBC or other news, there is a much larger and complex story. Analyzing what is happening without knowledge of background events leads to hastly formulated conclusions. This is more about Ukraine's inside politics, than about its relations with Russia. Ukraine is breaking from within.

[edit on 12-2-2008 by maloy]

Why does russia care if some OTHER nation wants to join NATO? Russia is doing nothing but saber rattling. Russia is not the superpower it once was.

Originally posted by West Coast
Why does russia care if some OTHER nation wants to join NATO? Russia is doing nothing but saber rattling. Russia is not the superpower it once was.

think of the Cuban missile crisis, and now think of the American version where we go to Ukraine after Ukraine joins nato and set up bases and missile defenses right near Russia.

Originally posted by ATSGUY

Originally posted by West Coast
Why does russia care if some OTHER nation wants to join NATO? Russia is doing nothing but saber rattling. Russia is not the superpower it once was.

think of the Cuban missile crisis, and now think of the American version where we go to Ukraine after Ukraine joins nato and set up bases and missile defenses right near Russia.

Nuclear missiles placed 200 odd miles off the US mainland, is the same thing?

This is not the cold war anymore. These are not in any way, shape, or form, an act to deter Russian nukes. Russia has even gone on the record to say that the could obliterate such an ABM with there vast nuclear stock pile. The ABM is for rogue nations.

I think Russia benefits from such rhetoric, which is why they do it.

The US won the cold war, they are the victors. America no longer views Russia as a threat, nor does America view Russia as an ally. Simply put, the US doesnt pay all that much attention to Russia these days.

Russia is kind of like that ex girlfriend we all have had (well maybe not all). You know, the one who has a hard time accepting defeat, shes in denial. Cant stand that you are ignoring her..

[edit on 14-2-2008 by West Coast]

Funny enough they haven't threatened Finland with nukes even though our politicians are talking about joining NATO all the time. The people are luckily enough against that and we maintain neutrality. Maybe Putin is worried that Ukraine is more easily recruited into NATO.

Originally posted by West Coast
Why does russia care if some OTHER nation wants to join NATO? Russia is doing nothing but saber rattling. Russia is not the superpower it once was.

Because NATO has been formed to face-off against USSR, and while USSR no longer exists NATO is still there. This leaves Russians to conclude the NATO is still there in order to face-off against Russia. And in recent years NATO has reinforced this very sentiment among Russians and Russia's allies, due to its actions and rapid expansion. This expansion by NATO appears to serve no other purpose than to encircle Russia and provide a buffer zone around it.

And this OTHER nation you are referring to is Russia's major economic partner, relies on Russia's energy resources to fuel its economy, has close cultural and social ties to Russia, has had major historical ties to Russia throughout its existance, and has always been Russia's close ally. So should Russia be concerned that that OTHER nation wants to join NATO and be a part of its master scheme? I do not see any reason why it shouldn't be.

I still say that any nation who threatens the use of nukes should be dealt with as if they had actually launched one.

If I threatened to aim my shotgun at a cops face, I don't think anyone would look the other way and call it saber rattling. Thats a pretty serious threat, as is threatening to aim ones nukes at someone.

[edit on 14-2-2008 by Quazga]

Originally posted by West Coast
These are not in any way, shape, or form, an act to deter Russian nukes.

They must be there for decoration purposes then. Or maybe it is going to be a museum exhibit or a science project? Well Anti-Ballistic Missile shield can't possibly be there to deter Ballistic Missiles could it?

Or maybe it is meant to deter Iran's imaginary ICBMs. In that case an imaginary ABM system would do just fine.

Originally posted by West Coast
The ABM is for rogue nations.

Which rogue nations have anything resembling a functional ICBM capable of reaching the range beyond that tactical-missiles?

Originally posted by maloy

Originally posted by West Coast
These are not in any way, shape, or form, an act to deter Russian nukes.

They must be there for decoration purposes then. Or maybe it is going to be a museum exhibit or a science project? Well Anti-Ballistic Missile shield can't possibly be there to deter Ballistic Missiles could it?

Or maybe it is meant to deter Iran's imaginary ICBMs. In that case an imaginary ABM system would do just fine.

Originally posted by West Coast
The ABM is for rogue nations.

Which rogue nations have anything resembling a functional ICBM capable of reaching the range beyond that tactical-missiles?

American people need to understand, just like Maloy have said, there is a strugle between 3 politicians Yushenko, Yanokovich and Timoshenko, they are all worth each other and I don't trust neither of them, now that there is Oil found recently near Kerch and Zmeini ostrov(island) there is more struggle , and just so you know, Ukraine will never join NATO, it is 100%, people don't want that, they don't need US trying to make Ukraine and Russia enemies, just because of some politicians. So you can forget about nukes pointing at Ukraine.

RUSSIA allways forced the surrounding nations into diabolic submission. using fear to stop the free choice. I had enough of them in Eastern Europe. For 30 years my country was starving while "exporting" the food to Russia in excange for "protection" .Also they managed to steal the national reserve of gold - back in the 43s and never gave it back . No compassion for them now , Eastern Europe does not need them anymore.

[edit on 14-2-2008 by sty]

Originally posted by Quazga
I still say that any nation who threatens the use of nukes should be dealt with as if they had actually launched one.

If I threatened to aim my shotgun at a cops face, I don't think anyone would look the other way and call it saber rattling. Thats a pretty serious threat, as is threatening to aim ones nukes at someone.

[edit on 14-2-2008 by Quazga]

go ahead , nuke russia and the mobile topol m's will wipe USA and NATO off the face of earth

Originally posted by manson_322

Originally posted by Quazga
I still say that any nation who threatens the use of nukes should be dealt with as if they had actually launched one.

If I threatened to aim my shotgun at a cops face, I don't think anyone would look the other way and call it saber rattling. Thats a pretty serious threat, as is threatening to aim ones nukes at someone.

[edit on 14-2-2008 by Quazga]

go ahead , nuke russia and the mobile topol m's will wipe USA and NATO off the face of earth

if one weapon is dropped today it is all over...lets not forget about first strike, in the david adair interview he says that secret governemnt wants to create a missle with first strike capabilites. His engine could have done that but he didnt make it for them. THat was back in the 70s and i am sure they have the capability now...

Google Video Link

video.google.com...


www.youtube.com...

[edit on 14-2-2008 by ATSGUY]

personally, i think if the US were to attack Russia, the US would make sure that they do enough damage to the point where Russia can't retaliate...why leave a monster half dead when you can kill it?

Originally posted by wisefoolishness


Russia rears its head again. looks like to me that they are trying to start a conflict by continually prodding about NATO.

Thoughts? Comments?

www.usatoday.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

The thing is, how would the US feel if Canada or Mexico decided to allow similar Russian defense system? They would have the same reaction. Yet everyone would be expected to support it because it was a "threat" to the US, pot meet kettle