Putin calls for more US concessions in follow-up to missile U-turn

Originally posted by jdub297
reply to post by buddhasystem

 

Well, those who say "concessions", get this:

On Friday, the Interfax news quoted an unnamed Russian military-diplomatic source as saying that the Russians had backed off a threat to deploy short-range missiles to a site near Poland if the U.S. moved ahead with the Bush missile defense plan.

First, the "Interfax" agency is about as valuable a source as some of the British tabloids. (I have YET to read any reports of value, and I check them almost daily.)

Second,rumors of Russia backing off of a military 'threat to deploy', is hardly a concession.

Russia abandons plans to deploy missiles near Poland

Reporting from Moscow - Russia will drop its controversial threat to deploy missiles near Poland in a reaction to shifts in U.S. missile shield plans, a Defense Ministry spokesman said today.

After President Obama decided this week to scrap its planned missile facilities in Poland and the Czech Republic, Moscow was widely expected to follow suit and abandon its threat to deploy Iskander missile systems in the far western Russian enclave of Kaliningrad.

Russia Scraps Missile Deployment after Obama Cancels Missile Shield

Russia says it has scrapped plans to deploy missiles in a region near Poland after U.S. President Barack Obama canceled plans for a missile defense system in Central Europe.

In a radio interview Saturday, Russian Deputy Defense Minister Vladimir Popovkin said Mr. Obama's move has made the deployment of Iskander short-range missiles in the Kaliningrad region unnecessary.

reply to post by The-Hammer
Some point to the withdrawal of "the threat to depoy the Iskander" in Kaliningrad as a "concession.

They offer nothing. They've been "threatening" to deploy the SS-26 for years. The SS-26 is a mobile system. By not driving the trucks to Kaliningrad, they have delayed "deployment" by a matter of hours, at best.

They could've done it at anytime. They made the same 'threat' with the Iskander's predecessor, the SS-23.

Luckily, they haven't been able to afford the manpower and materiel to do so.

The Russian navy retains the Baltic capabilities it has had since 1989.

No concession at all in the scheme of things.

jw

reply to post by jdub297



Good point. The Russians should still be B'ing about it being a threat to their security.

reply to post by xoxo stacie

Look for more countries to start "demanding" more from the USA in the form of technology, manufacturing etc. It is not going to stop anytime soon.

It looks like it's just getting started.

With G-20 leaders coming to PA, and with Obama going to the UN, the month will end with foreign policy in the news.

Expect the EU and BRIC to bring demands on climate change, bank regulation, international trade and protectionsim (including a new reserve currnecy), and defense.

Eurasian, Asian and Middle Eastern countries will want to talk about military intervention, development aid and defense.

Africa and South America want to know about agriculture and economic growth.

It'll be interesting to see what role the State Dept. (i.e., Hillary Clinton) will take as opposed to the Office of the Executive (Obama, himself, and his various "czars").

jw

Originally posted by jdub297
reply to post by xoxo stacie

 

Look for more countries to start "demanding" more from the USA in the form of technology, manufacturing etc. It is not going to stop anytime soon.

It looks like it's just getting started.

With G-20 leaders coming to PA, and with Obama going to the UN, the month will end with foreign policy in the news.

Expect the EU and BRIC to bring demands on climate change, bank regulation, international trade and protectionsim (including a new reserve currnecy), and defense.

Eurasian, Asian and Middle Eastern countries will want to talk about military intervention, development aid and defense.

Africa and South America want to know about agriculture and economic growth.

It'll be interesting to see what role the State Dept. (i.e., Hillary Clinton) will take as opposed to the Office of the Executive (Obama, himself, and his various "czars").

jw

ill be willing to bet that obama bends over on damn near all of those. hell, i hate to say it, but even hillary would have been a better choice than obama, at least she has some balls.

reply to post by dizzie56

ill be willing to bet that obama bends over on damn near all of those. hell, i hate to say it, but even hillary would have been a better choice than obama, at least she has some balls.

Much as I disagree with the Clintons' ideology, at least they were not out to destroy the fundamental principles of the United States.

We'll be in a far worse position one year from Obama's inauguration than we'd have been under ANY other administration.

jw

Originally posted by jibeho
Putin, the brazen outdoorsman and ex KGB, is loving this. "Sure Mr. Putin whatever you want Mr. Putin" says a naive city boy with no foreign policy, military, outdoor or management experience.

Obama is just looking weaker by the day. Wow! what a job. How he sleeps at night, I have no idea. Our nation has become nothing but a pawn in this new game of control.

I am sure many thought you were being facetious...

ZURICH (Reuters) - Russia's top general said on Monday that plans to deploy missiles in an enclave next to Poland had not been shelved, despite a decision by the United States to rethink plans for missile defense in Europe.


www.reuters.com...

But, but..I thought those nice Russians were only threatening to put missiles there because the US wanted to put an ABM system in Poland???

[edit on 21-9-2009 by mhc_70]

Originally posted by jdub297
reply to post by The-Hammer

 

Some point to the withdrawal of "the threat to depoy the Iskander" in Kaliningrad as a "concession.

You seem to be hung-up on the word "concession". I have no idea why you would prefer to live in such an un-sophisticated world. In it, you ignore the fact that the US missile defense system will still be in place, based on a different platform. Sheesh.

The SS-26 is a mobile system. By not driving the trucks to Kaliningrad, they have delayed "deployment" by a matter of hours, at best.

Is there a land route between Russia proper and Kalinigrad? Methinks not.

They could've done it at anytime. They made the same 'threat' with the Iskander's predecessor, the SS-23.

Oh get real. The repercussions would be pretty drastic and it would surely make the security worse off for everyone.

The Russian navy retains the Baltic capabilities it has had since 1989.

Good, this means they don't expand and/or encroach.

Originally posted by The-Hammer

Originally posted by jdub297
reply to post by buddhasystem

 

Well, those who say "concessions", get this:

On Friday, the Interfax news quoted an unnamed Russian military-diplomatic source as saying that the Russians had backed off a threat to deploy short-range missiles to a site near Poland

First, the "Interfax" agency is about as valuable a source as some of the British tabloids. (I have YET to read any reports of value, and I check them almost daily.)
Second,rumors of Russia backing off of a military 'threat to deploy', is hardly a concession.

Russia abandons plans to deploy missiles near Poland

Reporting from Moscow - Russia will drop its threat to deploy missiles near Poland in a reaction to shifts in U.S. missile shield plans, a Defense Ministry spokesman said today.
Moscow was widely expected to follow suit and abandon its threat to deploy Iskander missile systems in the far western Russian enclave of Kaliningrad.

Russia Scraps Missile Deployment after Obama Cancels Missile Shield

Russia says it has scrapped plans to deploy missiles in a region near Poland after U.S. President Barack Obama canceled plans for a missile defense system in Central Europe.

Wow. What does Russian Military say (as opposed to Interfax rumors and the LAT)?
"Russia general says missile plan not shelved"

Russia's top general said on Monday that plans to deploy missiles in an enclave next to Poland had not been shelved, despite a decision by the United States to rethink plans for missile defense in Europe.

www.reuters.com...

Ooops.

Who'd've guessed?

Deny ignorance.

jw

duplicate post

[edit on 21-9-2009 by jdub297]

reply to post by buddhasystem
Living in an "un-sophisticated world?"

Ad hominem is your best response?

And wrong, at that!

Call it what you will, but Obama is reneging on promises to our allies, giving up a strategic bargaining point, and opening the door to additional "demands" by unilaterally abandoning an effective deterrent to nuclear aggression.

Obama's vague reference to a "better" US missile defense system can only mean the Aegis system, which is in no way capable of offering the same protection/leverage to Eastern Europe.

Yes, leverage. Much of our strategic defense is based upon promises and future technology rather than concrete action. (Neither the "upgraded" Aegis nor the EEMD systems would be operational before 2014.) We gave up significant leverage for nothing in return.

There is NOTHING "still in place."

"Sheesh," indeed.

There is certainly "a land route between Russia proper and Kalinigrad." Or are you saying the threatened SS-23 and SS-26 deployments were never legitimate?

(Maybe someone should've told 2 prior U.S. administrations, the Poles, the Lithuanians, and the Czechs this. Then they wouldn't have been so worried about Russian aggression and as willing to accept the EEMD.)

"Methinks not?" (Methinks you have no idea.)

"The repercussions would be pretty drastic and it would surely make the security worse off for everyone. "

And it's improved, how?

The Russian military says there are no changes in their plans to deploy SS-26. (see above posts/cites/links)

jw

[edit on 21-9-2009 by jdub297]

Originally posted by mikerussellus
Just a thought. . . .

Will this change the theme, or the approach to the G20 summit in Philli?

Will he just sit back and sell out the rest of the country? I mean, he had no problem with eastern europe.

What will happen is that -- During the G20 summit in Philli (as you spell it), other countries will use Obama's weakness as a chance to bully our country.

I knew he should not have gone on his "European Apology Tour".

Someone needs to shut Obama up really fast. Not only is he destroying our great country, but he is also weakening our hand by giving into known communistic and terrorist countries.

"Biden get off you but and straighten this guy out! Fast!"

reply to post by Pathos

During the G20 summit in Philli (as you spell it), other countries will use Obama's weakness as a chance to bully our country.

I knew he should not have gone on his "European Apology Tour".

What a shame and disgrace. Everyone except confirmed "Obamites" (including the countries he visited) saw the "Tour" as the signal of a foreign policy based on appeasement rather than principle.

s4u

jw

reply to post by Dermo

Its called "Making Friends".. something the US forgot about completely for the past two decades.

Barack Obama with these moves has made the world a safer place and probably won support from Russia to place these sanctions on Iran.

Is this your idea of "support?"

"Russia Resists U.S Efforts to Seek More Iran Sanctions"

Russia publicly pushed back Tuesday against U.S. efforts to threaten tough new sanctions if Iran fails to prove its nuclear program is peaceful, dealing an apparent setback to President Barack Obama's hopes for Moscow's backing for fresh penalties against Tehran.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said Moscow believed such threats were ''counterproductive'' and that only negotiations should be pursued now.

www.nytimes.com...

Ooops. Another slap in the face.
Thank you, world, may we have another?

After all this, the US, NATO and Russia will join into a new strategic partnership and become allies ... .

Umm, nope.

Now Hillary has to eat crow for POTUS. Again.

Wonder how long she'll stick with this?

jw

reply to post by Pathos

What will happen is that -- During the G20 summit in Philli (as you spell it), other countries will use Obama's weakness as a chance to bully our country.

You mean like losing the dollar as the world's "reserve currency?"

Or losing support for the dollar against the pound sterling, yen, deutsche mark, yuan, krona, franc, and peso?

No, couldn't happen. Could it?

Ooops.

jw

Originally posted by poedxsoldiervet
reply to post by jdub297

 

You know with Clinton being sidelined you have to wonder if she will resign in protest over Obamas retardation? I keep hearing she is going to make a 2012 run.

I hope she dies from an embolism or something more painful - this stupid woman is not qualified to tie her shoes.

reply to post by Dermo

Giving these concessions to Russia while forging an alliance between the US, EU and Russia is one of the best pieces of Geopolitical chess play I have seen since the start of the Cold war. And this is completely unexpected. I was watching the Russian news all day and they are flabbergasted about what is happening. They are singing Obama's praises while asking what the US are going to want in return.

I can't wait to play you chess.
"Russia's Putin warns against intimidating Iran"

Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin warned major powers on Wednesday against intimidating Iran and said talk of sanctions against the Islamic Republic over its nuclear programme was "premature".

in.reuters.com...

I promise not to say, "I told you so."

Deny ignorance.

jw

Originally posted by Dermo
reply to post by jdub297

 

Its called "Making Friends".. something the US forgot about completely for the past two decades.

Appeasement is a far better definition. Check your history and you'll find that appeasement has never worked.

Sleep a little easier at night.

While you still can. Something tells me you might be one of the first to scream, "Why did they let this happen to us when we just wanted to be friends?". The answer you likely won't hear is that they did it because of you and so many others like you that wanted to sell out this country.

reply to post by centurion1211
[uote] "Why did they let this happen to us when we just wanted to be friends?". The answer you likely won't hear is that they did it because of you and so many others like you that wanted to sell out this country.


You won't hear it because they'll never say it.

As long as we give in and give up, some people will see this as "progress."

They've even got their own party/movement now, "Progressive."
Obama's chief advisor sees "de-development" as a step forward.

jw