Russia to move missiles to Baltic

What are the range on those russian bad boys?

I.e what countries will be 'covered'??

reply to post by maloy

This ABM-contention is not about EU. Russia doesn't have a problem with EU.

Well, even if major powers in EU do not like Baltic states/Polish relationship with Russia, they will defend them. If not - EU is an empty bubble and too much was invested in it to loose it. It costs more then energy. As an example of what i meant by poor prospects of such a step:

I believe today's announcement [by the Russian president] is the wrong signal sent at the wrong time," Jens Ploetner, an official spokesman for the German Foreign Ministry said, adding that Germany is in favor of constructive dialogue between Russia and NATO on the U.S. missile shield

en.rian.ru...
I think you will trust this site. Other one i found has a tiny difference in second part of the statement. This will not remove US missile shield and its bases. Nor it will improve national security of Russian Federation , since EU will be more hostile to it. With very low prospect of nuclear war, having EU shift even more toward US side is the only possible consequence of this step.
As for Eastern invasion - i indeed meant Mongols. But now reading about it a little more, i think you are correct - it was long ago and it was not the same Russia so any analogue is lacking. However i still think that for Russia to choose China is not best option. And i also think that Russian leaders choose it never the less. Just in spite. Example? Russian territories went to China recently, not ,say, Japan. Or ,hmmm, other country that claims Russia annexed part of its territory.

Originally posted by mr-lizard
What are the range on those russian bad boys?

I.e what countries will be 'covered'??

Iskander's range is believed to be about 400-600 km. From Kaliningrad this covers much of the Baltic states (Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia) - but it will not likely be meant for them. The range also covers nearly half of Poland, including the radar sites. A small portion of Czech republic is in range as well, but not substantial. And of course the Baltic Sea.

These are not ICBMs. These are theater ballistic missiles. The West knows relatively little about the new systems and their true capabilities.



I am thinking that Russia's plans do not stop with Kaliningrad. An agreement could be reached (and in fact may be being negotiated now) for placement of Russian systems in Belarus. These systems will be the defensive S400, but it is not a far stretch to say Iskander might find its way there as well.

[edit on 5-11-2008 by maloy]

We all knew this would happen eventualy...


And here it is...


Can you blame them...


'Act strongest when your enemy is most vunerable'

So in response, can the US send nuclear missiles to Poland and Czechoslovakia in response?

Obama will probably raise a white flag, and I hope he has plenty of back-ups, because once you raise that first one, the others get real easy.

Originally posted by ZeroKnowledge
Well, even if major powers in EU do not like Baltic states/Polish relationship with Russia, they will defend them. If not - EU is an empty bubble and too much was invested in it to loose it. It costs more then energy.

I still don't think that EU has established itself as a common military/defensive entity. It is still primarily a trade-based organization. NATO fills the role of the official regional alliance. I have heard arguements recently about whether EU actually has any military backbone or not.

Still, something very interesting is going on. US and Eastern Europeans are quick to blame Russia and antagonize its every move (as in Georgia war), while Western Europe is cautious not to jump on the band wagon. France and Germany appear to want to be moderators instead. Even the pro-American Sarkozy, which is unexpected. If I had to speculate, I'd say that NATO is in for a major restructuring in the future years, and EU will take a serious look at its military-defensive component.

Originally posted by ZeroKnowledge
"adding that Germany is in favor of constructive dialogue between Russia and NATO on the U.S. missile shield"

Constructive dialogue failed because of U.S. After the Georgia war U.S. and Poland immediately rushed into a decision ignoring Russia. I really don't see any prospects for "constructive dialogue" - thanks to U.S. we are past that point. Not that I disagree with Germany's stance, but we need a realist approach.

Originally posted by ZeroKnowledge
With very low prospect of nuclear war, having EU shift even more toward US side is the only possible consequence of this step.

I still don't see Western EU caring about this very much. France, Germany, and Britain are seasoned players, and aren't impressed by Russia's or US's shennenigans easily. They are more concerned with economy and energy security right now, not childish cold war games. If they shift toward U.S. it won't be because of big bad Russia, but because of economic reasons.

Originally posted by ZeroKnowledge
As for Eastern invasion - i indeed meant Mongols. But now reading about it a little more, i think you are correct - it was long ago and it was not the same Russia so any analogue is lacking.

Russia wasn't even a state at that time. It was a loose alliance of state entities constanly warring and switching alliances. There was the Polish-Lithuanian Empire and the Kievan Rus. There was no Russia. At the time of the Mongols Russian Empire wasn't to be conceived for another 300-400 years.

If there is any loose analagy it's the Russo-Polish wars and the later Russo-Ottoman wars. But even then - there were too many different factors to tie to today's events.

Originally posted by ZeroKnowledge
However i still think that for Russia to choose China is not best option.

No it certainly isn't. But in terms of alliances Russia doesn't have much going for it elsewhere. If there will be an alliance, it will be out of necessity. Hopefully it won't come to that. Better option for Russia would be alliance with India. But even then - there is geographical separation, and India has no reason to antagonize the U.S.

Originally posted by ZeroKnowledge
And i also think that Russian leaders choose it never the less. Just in spite.

They might if it gets any worse. Russia's next step largely depends on US's next step. So US must understand that a wrong move or wrong signal to Russia could cause such an alliance. Likewise US can prevent it by just being less aggressive in its foreign policy.

Originally posted by ZeroKnowledge
Example? Russian territories went to China recently, not ,say, Japan.

I think that goodwill gesture was meant more to encourange economic cooperation, than for military purposes. I think the islands will be returned to Japan as well when the right time comes and Russia can leverage it for its advantage. It's like a playing card, and Russia is waiting for the right time to use it.

Originally posted by ZeroKnowledge
Or ,hmmm, other country that claims Russia annexed part of its territory.

Russia did not annex anything from Georgia. Neither Abkhazia nor South Ossetia are part of Russia. They are independent as far as Russia is concerned. So this is not annexation. So Russia can't "return" the territory to Georgia, because it is not under Russia's control.

Originally posted by dooper
So in response, can the US send nuclear missiles to Poland and Czechoslovakia in response?

Would makes you think Poland or Czech Republic would be willing to except such nice gift? Or maybe US feels that it can send them anyway regardless of whether Poland or Czech Republic?

Can US send them? Yeah. Who is Russia to say it can't. US "can" also invade China. US doesn't need to ask permission.

The question is what can others do? Can Russia place some Topol M's in Venezuela? Can Chavez hold back his excitement over such prospect? Can Russia send some Topol M's to Iran? That'll really make things interesting.

I personally think, that obama should work to strengthen the EU. NATO, should role into the EU, and Non European Allies should be given a special status to the EU. These Allies should include not only the U.S., but ALSO russia. In this manner, Europe then becomes Nuetral, and there is an establishment that E.U. nations can't attack each other, nor can special allies attack any EU nation. This would establish Europes nuetrality, give it an ability to disarm the nukes, and give the U.S. and Russia some breathing room to actually cool off this cold war, with both saving face.

The only thing that a cold war establishes in my opinion is nationalism and corporatism. Basically, hard earned tax dollars are spent on useless systems that are ment to protect each other from each other. Its a waste of money, and resources, especially given the BOTH Russia, and the US have the capability to destroy each other 5 fold.

Just my opinion. I personally would like to see russia entering the EU. It would cool its abilities while integrating it more into the NWO.

Cheers,

Camain

Originally posted by maloy
How did Russia's stance change to "hostile"? Define hostile. Explain how Russia's stance changed to Poland and Czech Republics, and why you perceive Russia to be a threat to them. Can you back your arguement that Russia become more "hostile" with any facts.
...
Worsened relations is not a reason to assume hostility and form a military alliance against Russia.

Tell me what I KNOW. Or better yet tell me what you KNOW. I don't mean your opinion that Putin is hostile - I mean concrete facts as to how Putin's policies were hostile to Russia's neighbors.
...
If you believe that you have facts to prove me wrong - I will gladly hear them. But concluding that Putin is hostile does not substitute for a fact.

I define hostile (fine, unfriendly might be a better word) as:

- Politically motivated economical decisions intent on pressuring the governments of neighboring countries to Russia's will. (eg. energy, foodstuff and border control issues.)

- Maintaining the ridiculous position that the Soviet occupation was a 'liberation campaign' and boosting this sentiment in the general population of Russia, whipping up anger against everyone who does not embrace the soviet occupation as 'liberation'.

- Opposing the movement of these states towards international organizations, including EU and NATO. While it may be clear that USSR might not like being next-door to NATO, maintaining the same stance after becoming Russia, a presumably democratic and open society, indicates Russia retains desires to control these regions and dislikes letting them make up their own mind.

- Interfering with internal politics by supporting anti-government elements in the countries and sending them there (eg. all those cute youth organizations which they claim to have no connections with). I know there is no paper link on this, but it is obvious.. as obvious as oil as a major reason of Iraq war. (A patriotic and blind American will probably never admit that though).

- The biggest beef I have with Russia however is the way the government manipulates the media, spreading disinformation about its neighbors. It creates feud between our nations on a person-to-person level, which is the worst thing that can happen. Governments come and go, but a person's mindset is hard to change. We have now an entire generation on both side of the borders disliking the other side and being blind to reasonable arguments. People shooting at images of neighboring government officials like in these Russian youth-camps? Polls showing that Baltic states are considered in Russia as the greatest ENEMY? All these things do not prop up themselves, but are carefully cultivated in the society. And that is the main thing which I consider..... unfriendly. And on the other side of the border, young people react with similar stupidities.

Trying to influence other countries is an understandable goal any state can have. However there are different ways how this can be achieved. Russia has chosen the confrontational and aggressive approach instead of a cooperative and soft one. You may say that the 2 are just as valid.. and they may be.. but one is still more hostile than the other.

If you feel that these are not 'facts' enough for you and you want links, I am afraid you will have to search for them yourself. You can start by linking a source to every 'fact' You post here. One reason for not offering you links is that much of the information comes from first hand observation... of not only my own country but also yours - after all your TV channels are fully available here... unfortunately. Second reason is that I do not have the time you seem to have, to put into these rare posts I make. And thirdly.. I really think you do not care... Otherwise you would see what is being done to the Russian people yourself.

Edit: actually you could try and answer also this one - what has Russia done to lessen the tensions which have grown between itself and the other East-European countries? What are the signs that it respects the right of self-determination of these nations...?

[edit on 5-11-2008 by Alphard]

I'm from Estonia and my country isn't exactly particularly thrilled about residing next to Russia. It's more like a curse than a blessing if anything.

Originally posted by Alphard
I define hostile (fine, unfriendly might be a better word) as:

Unfriendly is one thing, hostility is another. Unfriendliness is not a reason to assume one is under military threat, and to necessitate the need to place foreign missile systems on one's soil. Hostility as I understand it is closer to actual aggression, where one feels physically endangered by the actions of another.

Originally posted by Alphard
- Politically motivated economical decisions intent on pressuring the governments of neighboring countries to Russia's will. (eg. energy, foodstuff and border control issues.)

These took place under Yeltsin too - just not as well known. Exertion of economic influence is nothing new in politics, and is practiced by virtually every single country. US and Poland use it too. Of course everybody uses it to the extent of their capabilities. Large countries like US and Russia can exert more influence, and almost always do.

No hostility here - that's the way capitalist-globalist states operate.

Originally posted by Alphard
- Maintaining the ridiculous position that the Soviet occupation was a 'liberation campaign' and boosting this sentiment in the general population of Russia, whipping up anger against everyone who does not embrace the soviet occupation as 'liberation'.

Ethnic Russians always believed this to be a fact. They did under Yeltsin and they do now. Nothing changed in the mentality of the people. There wasn't really any "boosting" of this sentiment in Russia - it was always strong, so I don't know where you are getting this from.

What did take place is the clash of cultures in places like Latvia and Estonia, where new nationalist governments decided to revise their countries' stance on the issue. Local ethnic Russians protested this. This was as much fueled by Estonian and Latvian nationalism, as by Russian government. Things on this issue have calmed down mostly.

Originally posted by Alphard
- Opposing the movement of these states towards international organizations, including EU and NATO. While it may be clear that USSR might not like being next-door to NATO, maintaining the same stance after becoming Russia, a presumably democratic and open society, indicates Russia retains desires to control these regions and dislikes letting them make up their own mind.

Russia never protested anyone joing EU.

As for NATO - remember that NATO never revised its official mission. USSR fell apart, but NATO remained, and it retained its "Wester vs East" stance. NATO's attitude towards Russia always remained much like its attitude towards USSR. So naturally Russia remained antagonistic towards it.

Russia voiced its opinion against its neighbors joining NATO. Yet it never threatened military action. Economic measures were expected of course - and no one was surprised by them. See the first issue of "economic pressure" above.

Originally posted by Alphard
- Interfering with internal politics by supporting anti-government elements in the countries and sending them there (eg. all those cute youth organizations which they claim to have no connections with). I know there is no paper link on this, but it is obvious.. as obvious as oil as a major reason of Iraq war. (A patriotic and blind American will probably never admit that though).

The only countries that come to mind are Estonia and Latvia. This has not happened anywhere else. The Estonian and Latvian pro-Russian organizations were not created under Putin - they existed since USSR fell apart. They have been active under Yeltsin too. But again remember that the clash of cultures happened only after nationalist governments came to power in the Baltics in 2000's.

There is no definitive connection between these factions and Putin's administration. True - they have financial connection to some individual members of pro-Putin "United Russia" party, as well as several other parties. These connections were in place before Putin - except the parties were different.

Originally posted by Alphard
- The biggest beef I have with Russia however is the way the government manipulates the media, spreading disinformation about its neighbors. It creates feud between our nations on a person-to-person level, which is the worst thing that can happen. Governments come and go, but a person's mindset is hard to change.

Intense propaganda was always present in Russia. It was so under USSR, it was so under Yeltsin, and it remains so. Throught the ages Russians have developed one key mentality - media is not to be trusted ever. So while the Russia media spreads this BS, few educated Russians (and most Russians are educated) believe any of it. True - there is some uneducated youth that's eating this stuff up. But they are not a majority.

And if you are not aware, similar brainwashing is taking place in Poland and the Baltics. People there are very hateful of Russians in recent years, largely thanks to their government and media.

I don't agree with Russian government's or media's actions - but that is the way things always were and still are. At least Russians have full access to the internet and satellite networks with foreign news. That's keeping us sane, from becoming mindless sheep.

Originally posted by Alphard
We have now an entire generation on both side of the borders disliking the other side and being blind to reasonable arguments. People shooting at images of neighboring government officials like in these Russian youth-camps?

Don't let the actions of a few thousand idiots serve as a representation of national sentiments among the people. Most Russians I know see Georgians, Ukrainians, Poles, Balts, and Czech as Slav brothers. I am sure most of these ethnicities have same views towards Russians.

Originally posted by Alphard
Polls showing that Baltic states are considered in Russia as the greatest ENEMY? All these things do not prop up themselves, but are carefully cultivated in the society. And that is the main thing which I consider..... unfriendly. And on the other side of the border, young people react with similar stupidities.

Unfriendly - yes. But still no hostility or danger of aggression. Much of Europe has similar bitter attitudes toward neighbors dating from centuries ago. British and French, Finns and Swedes, Czech and Hungarians, Greek and Turks, Romanians and Moldovans, Serbs and Albanians, Spanish and Basque. Most of these only manifest themselve during soccer matches.

It's called Narcissism of Minor Differences (see my sig). This phenomenon is seen around the world.

Again - this is no reason to ally against Russia.

Originally posted by Alphard
Trying to influence other countries is an understandable goal any state can have. However there are different ways how this can be achieved. Russia has chosen the confrontational and aggressive approach instead of a cooperative and soft one.

Confrontational and aggressive? How so? There is no threat of any military conftrontation. Bad relations - yes. But no real aggression, just lots of antagonism.

And Russia has chosen this just as much as Poland and the Baltics chose it. Both sides are to blame - both have their share of nationalistic fanaticism. These sentiments will come to pass. There is no reason to gear up for a cold war because of this senseless crap.

Originally posted by Alphard
If you feel that these are not 'facts' enough for you and you want links, I am afraid you will have to search for them yourself.

Oh I understand what you mean and where you are getting all of these events. I don't need links - I knows these issues inside and out, and obviously you know them well too. But I think you (and most Westerners) are misinterpreting them as aggression, when all they are is nationalistic policies and quarrelling. It helps to understand them if you live in Eastern Europe - otherwise these issues may be hard to grasp.

Originally posted by Alphard
after all your TV channels are fully available here... unfortunately.

So you are from Eastern Europe after all. Where from, if you don't mind me asking?

Originally posted by Alphard
Otherwise you would see what is being done to the Russian people yourself.

Oh I see it. But the same thing is being done to people in Eastern Europe. Both sides are to blame. Of course Russia is larger - so it can carry itself through. I have nothing against Eastern European countries seeking membership in EU. But I still don't see why they need to be part of NATO. Still - it is their right, and they can join any organization they want. Similarly they can place US weapon systems on their land - although I don't see the reason for it. But when Russia makes counter moves, don't blame Russia. Eastern Europe escalated this no less so than did Russia. The blame game won't help.

Originally posted by Evolet
I'm from Estonia and my country isn't exactly particularly thrilled about residing next to Russia. It's more like a curse than a blessing if anything.

Well if your country isn't thrilled about residing next to Russia, I'd say that's your country's problem. Estonia is free to pack up and move elsewhere (maybe next to Alaska so Sarah Palin can keep a watch on it from her house).

reply to post by maloy


Thank you for the replies. I think we agree on many things and several of the disagreements come from the fact that neither of us is a native English speaker and thus we may have a slightly different semantic connection with words like 'hostile' and 'agressive'. For me neither of these words is necessarily connected with violence.

I would like to still address a few points.

Ethnic Russians always believed this to be a fact. They did under Yeltsin and they do now. Nothing changed in the mentality of the people. There wasn't really any "boosting" of this sentiment in Russia - it was always strong, so I don't know where you are getting this from.

I am getting this from frequent statements made by Russian officials. I will leave aside the more populist ones who do it all the time, because it is probably just 'what they do', but one example might be Putin himself in the 2005 May speech where he stressed the role of USSR as the liberator of Eastern Europe and not bringing out the misery that the next 50 years brought to the 'liberated'. This was reported by BNS/Reuters on 07.05.2005, but I do not have the original article available.

What did take place is the clash of cultures in places like Latvia and Estonia, where new nationalist governments decided to revise their countries' stance on the issue.

I must strongly oppose this statement that the governments 'revised' their stance as nationalists came to power. While the current administration is way too nationalistic to my liking, the position of these countries has ALWAYS been that they were forcibly occupied. Saying that the position was 'revised' incorrectly indicates that we did not think so previously. I accept that the nationalistic governments in these East-European countries have not really kept quiet about their opinion.

However a very large part of this tension would be removed if the Russian government would just say to the world and its own people in a clear and unambiguous way that 'Yes, we occupied those countries by force and it was wrong. We understand your fears towards us, but this is a new Russia and believe me when I say we can move forward to the future with cooperation.'
Believe me, these countries would like being friends with Russia... just as long as they are certain the past will not repeat itself.

As for NATO - remember that NATO never revised its official mission. USSR fell apart, but NATO remained, and it retained its "Wester vs East" stance. NATO's attitude towards Russia always remained much like its attitude towards USSR. So naturally Russia remained antagonistic towards it.

Actually I only half agree with you here. NATO did revise its mission, but as a behemoth it changed he course too slow... and half way through the change, new tensions propped up... The change was in both armament and doctrine. However I think Russia should have been offered more close cooperation with NATO. In fact I wrote on this topic well over 10 y ago when I finished school but some-why I was given a poor grade

While I completely agree with your points made on economic pressuring and opposition to a foreign alliance on its borders (also why I see this deployment of missiles as a completely logical and valid step), I would like to re-iterate what I said before... If Russia would accept publicly its historic record of occupation and would make a clean break from it, much of the fear and suspicion towards it would disappear, allowing for a more harmonious path forward.

Intense propaganda was always present in Russia. It was so under USSR, it was so under Yeltsin, and it remains so. Throught the ages Russians have developed one key mentality - media is not to be trusted ever. So while the Russia media spreads this BS, few educated Russians (and most Russians are educated) believe any of it.

If only this were so... I am afraid while we may think we are immune to propaganda, it is not as easy. And it is completely true that the propaganda is used on both sides of the Line... in both cases often for domestic reasons. The only difference is that in Russia the media is state controlled, while in most other E-Europe, it is still more free... which means that the opposing views get at least some coverage.

[edit on 6-11-2008 by Alphard]

Originally posted by maloy

Originally posted by Evolet
I'm from Estonia and my country isn't exactly particularly thrilled about residing next to Russia. It's more like a curse than a blessing if anything.

Well if your country isn't thrilled about residing next to Russia, I'd say that's your country's problem. Estonia is free to pack up and move elsewhere (maybe next to Alaska so Sarah Palin can keep a watch on it from her house).

Haha, yeah you wish.

More on this - the West reacts.......

The US has described as "disappointing" Russia's plans to deploy new missiles in the Baltic region to counter a US defence shield in central Europe.

The US state department stressed the planned shield in the Czech Republic and Poland was "not aimed at Russia".

Nato voiced "serious concerns" about Moscow's intentions.

President Dmitry Medvedev said putting short-range Iskander missiles near Nato members Poland and Lithuania would "neutralise" the US missile shield.

In his state-of-the nation address on Wednesday, Mr Medvedev said Russia had been forced to respond to the US plans by deploying missiles in its Kaliningrad enclave, between Poland and Lithuania.

The US has repeatedly stated that its shield is a defence against missiles from "rogue" nations, but Russia sees it as a direct threat, correspondents say.

While Mr Medvedev's announcement was extremely provocative, the Kremlin's clear message was that America was to blame, the BBC's Rupert Wingfield-Hayes in Moscow says.

source

This could get messy folks.

Originally posted by budski
This could get messy folks.

erm... no? No reason to try and sensationalize.

Edit: OK.. if you emphasize 'COULD' then I agree with you.



[edit on 6-11-2008 by Alphard]

This really made me chuckle when I heard it. Especially against the backdrop of the obsequious fawning and congratulations from most other world leaders (our beloved Mr Brown included).

World politics is a huge game of chess to these guys.

However, building a missile defense shield on Russia's borders is quite an aggressive piece of posturing, and I'm not surprised they're not happy about it.

I don't know why we don't just invite Russia to join NATO - problem solved.

reply to post by Alphard


No sensationalism here - it's a perfectly valid concern given that the missile shield is supposed to be to protect against Iranian missiles hitting Europe (a joke if ever there was one regarding capability) and that Russia does a LOT of business with Iran, including designing and helping to build nuclear power stations, and providing the fuel for them.

They also sell weaponry to Iran and are a major trading partner.

This is western (US) pressure to try and get the russians to toe the line in regard to Iran and what the "International community" wants - in other words, what the US and Israel want.

It ain't gonna happen - Russia won't back down, and escalating this will only make them more determined.

Tie in the pipelines that the west and Russia are both seeking to control, and you end up with the potential for conflict.

GREAT so we all worry about iran

now remind me again which pert of europe iranian missiles will hit?

oh thats right


NONE

*hang in im repeating myself from 3 days ago here)


the range of the shahab 3 will mean it`ll splash into the sea south of greece.

www.iranwatch.org...

so which country are those `interceptors` for attempting to engage since being based in poland they are too far away from hitting anything iranian.


to put it very blunty


www.europeetravel.com...

the green bit at the top is POLAND where the missiles will be based

the yellow bit at the bottom is MACEDONIA - at the outer (and slightly beyond) the maximum range) of the shahab-3

the distance between the 2 countries capital cities is 1,110 km

now - have a look where the SS-19 silo`s are in the Kozel'sk region and there flight path towards the USA

reply to post by budski


I agree there is potential, but it is just one of many many similar moves. There is no need to think that now that they place missiles in Kaliningrad, war will break loose. If anything, this move will bring balance to the situation which was previously tilted in US favor.

In addition - Kaliningrad is so isolated from the rest of the Russia... If indeed a conflict was approaching, Russia would understand that these missiles would be the first things that are taken out and without any problems. They do not NEED the missiles there... it is all political posturing.