Medvedev: Russia may target US missile defense sites in Europe if Washington fails to address concer

if the opposite happened would the United States allow Russia to put the same missile defence shield in Canada. Not likely, we probably would have another Cuban missile style crisis happening now, if Russia ministries even attempted it.

The United states government honestly would want to be careful in messing with the big bear in its own back yard!

Originally posted by Xcathdra

Originally posted by LiquidAsh
I don't understand how Russia will deploy missiles against missile defense systems. Isn't the purpose of missile defense to defend against missiles? And the US is putting there military all over the world. Are there any other countries that have bases in different countries than there own except the US, France and Germany?

I dont see how the US Missile defense system could even be considered effective against Russian nuclear weapons.

Yet the American ABM system in Europe is obviously directed against Russia. The whole point of this ABM system aimed at Russia is part of the American strategy for nuclear dominance (ABM systems being part of a first strike capability).



Russia has many different missiles too, including conventional ballistic missiles that could launched from within Russia at targets outside (such as Iskanders).

The state the nation is in, one would think the idea of another Cold War sounds appetizing.

Think about it? Another space race? An arms race?

reply to post by concernedcitizen519


Russia must stop all useless negotiations on disarmament and to begin serious preparations for war

reply to post by concernedcitizen519


The Russian administration is concerned about NATO’s plans to redeploy the vessels armed with guided missiles in northern seas.

Dmitry Rogozin, Moscow’s NATO envoy, stated that Russia was very concerned about the USA’s intention to temporarily redeploy platforms with guided missiles in the northern seas. It goes about the North, the Baltic and possibly the Barents seas.

reply to post by stake


Russia's first Borey class strategic submarine will be put into service with the Pacific Fleet in 2011, Prime Minister Vladimir Putin said on Monday.

The Yury Dolgoruky, which has recently completed sea trials in the White Sea, is expected to be commissioned by the Russian Navy pending the outcome of Bulava ballistic missile testing.

"The submarine is successfully undergoing trials. It should be delivered to the Pacific Fleet this year," Putin said at a meeting with United Russia activists.

On August 27, the Yury Dolgoruky conducted a successful launch of a Bulava missile at a range of 9,100 kilometers (about 5,650 miles).

Three other Borey class nuclear submarines, the Alexander Nevsky, the Vladimir Monomakh, and Svyatitel Nikolai (St. Nicholas) are in different stages of completion. Russia is planning to build eight of these subs by 2015.

Putin said on Monday that the government had allocated 4.7 trillion rubles ($160 bln) for the modernization of the Russian Navy until 2020.

The only outcome of all of this, is that both sides will end up spending more money on developing and upgrading their ABM and ICBM technologies. US made the first move by withdrawing from the ABM treaty, and installing the ABM installations and radars on Russia's border. These systems when viewed as part of US and NATO's nuclear tactical strategy have the potential to offset nuclear parity that has been in place since the Cold War.

Now Russia is forced to make its move, and I have no doubt that it will. Deploying tactical missiles in Kalinigrad and Belarus is only the first step. In the coming decade Russia is going to be making significant invesments in new ICBM technology. Russia will focus on ICBM that can overcome any existing defenses. Russia is also quickly getting back into the game with Ballistic Missile submarines, which it sees as the quickest stop-gap measure to regain nuclear parity and potentially force US to reconsider the ABM installations.

I can only anticipate how much whinning will come from the US when Russia introduces and tests new ICBM's. But now that should not come as a surprise to anyone.



In the end both Russia and US will still be at nuclear parity, alas with significantly strengthened nuclear capabilities and hundreds of billions of dollars out the door. Call it a new Cold War if you will, but I doubt it will be nearly as dramatic as the first one. There is no clash of competing idealogies now. This one will be mostly quiet and behind the scenes, with good windfall profits to defense contractors on both sides.

One potential reason I see for both US and Russia engaging in this "arms race", is not to actually threaten each other, but to keep ahead of nuclear capabilities of China. Neither Russia nor US wants China to achieve nuclear parity with them, and this may be a conscious move - now US and Russia have an excuse to update their nuclear capabilities without officially making it seem like China is the reason.

reply to post by maloy


Great analysis based on sound logic, I hope it plays out that smoothly!

reply to post by concernedcitizen519


Medvedev: U.S. impose missile defense system to Europe.
This view was expressed Dmitry Medvedev at a meeting with the media of the North-West Federal District.

"My partners - said the president - different, I will not name them, so as not to embarrass, they told me: what are you asking us - the Americans have decided there, they are promoting. And this is our role - we are members of NATO, we will provide our own territory. that's all. we can not spend money for this , we do not have it simply. "

reply to post by maloy


It is most certainly not an under table arrangement between US and Russia to expand its nuke arsenal, or Medev would not had asked what those missiles were targeting at, to be in writing.

Medev is only a tool of Putin and both of them are playing too high a stake in Syria and the middle east, over basically human rights issues between citizens and their leaders. Russia should support the aspirations of the downtrodden, not the oppressors, but its their free will and choice, even if a stupid one, just as China now rue the day they supported Gaddafi instead of the Rebel Council, and are now begging the Libyans to be place back on their good books.

Furthermore, Russia had found new wealth - oil within its own terroritories and had grown rich, rich enough to fund its military back from the ashes of poverty in the past. It doesnt need middle-east's oil, more so when green energy is be touted as the next major resource, to die over.

Worse, if the stupid attention seeking whore Putin wants to play gung ho cowboy with a resurgent military, while their eyes are diverted to the middle east - the rats - Russian Mafia - will make the attempt to seize power in Kremlin. They have the boys, the money, and pieces of silver to buy over the corrupt. And the Mafia does not like wars, for it hinders commerce and stability where its corrupted influences and profits are. The younger masses are none to please with Putin anyway as well.

Thus, before Medev or Putin thinks to flex its muscles to the front, best they take a closer look at what games will be initiated behind them both.

By declaring that he will dispatch 2,500 Marines to Australia, President Obama has crossed a line, beginning a new Cold War with China, one based on military encirclement on sea and land, costing unknown trillions in defense dollars, and shoring up cheap labor markets in a free trade zone excluding China. An increased emphasis on China's systemic human rights violations will provide a liberal rationale for the new global competition.

reply to post by Agent_USA_Supporter


They arent claims..... Its a fact.

If you spent a bit more time reading posts and less time trying to usher in the appocolypse you would have seen this -

US to cease observing arms treaty with Russia: State Dept.

The United States said Tuesday it would no longer provide data to Russia on conventional weapons and troops in Europe, citing non-compliance by Moscow with a two-decade old treaty that governed the information exchange.

State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland told reporters the United States will cease to observe the provisions of the Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe (CFE).

Adopted in November 1990, it was seen as a groundbreaking accord credited with greatly advancing global security. But Russia suspended its observance of the treaty in 2007.

"This is an issue that we've been working on ever since the Russians withdrew," Nuland told reporters.

"After four years of Russian non-implementation and after repeated efforts... to save the treaty, we think it's important to take some counter-measures vis-a-vis Russia," she said.

The US will now no longer accept Russian inspection of its bases.

reply to post by stake


1. US and Australia, along with many other asian states inclulding Indonesia, long had military ties, regular exercises and arrangement, even before the rise of China. Basing its troops there is nothing new.

.
2. USA is also a pacific nation, with military and economic ties to pacific ocean states, and would need safe, peaceful and full access across the waters for trade and commerce. This is not some liberal belief or out of whack conservative's ranting salivation idealogy. Read my lips - its only business. The health of the economy relies on it

.
3. Safe conduct of business will cost. Nothing comes free. The cost of unsafe waters conduct will cost far more.

.
4. China invited trouble upon itself when it claims the entire eatern seas belonging to themselves, robbing other nations of their territorial rights and safe conduct, wealth from the seas. Instead of compromises and negotiations, it had stoop to flexing its muscles to claim those right.

Thus, it deserves a response, and not certainly just a smile and let China control the entire eastern sea along with its resources needed by mankind.

Know the facts, differentiate hate idealogy from reality, and the truth will set one free, otherwise the one will only be imprisoned forever by one's own stupidity and delusions.

If China is unhappy with the Obama administration’s decision to send a handful of Marines to northern Australia, wait until the U.S. Navy starts basing warships in Singapore, on the edge of the disputed waters of the South China Sea.

The United States and Singapore are in the final negotiating stages of an agreement to base some of the U.S. Navy’s new Littoral Combat Ships at the Changi Naval Base. Former Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates announced in June that a deal was near to deploy the ships to Singapore, and a Pentagon spokesman said this week that officials “remain excited about this opportunity.”

The initial announcement barely caused a ripple compared with the stir caused by President Obama’s declaration Wednesday that he would permanently station a small number of Marines in Australia.

The former involves 250 to 2,500 Marines deployed roughly 2,500 miles from China. The latter is significantly closer — and is sure to be viewed as more threatening by Beijing.

Littoral Combat Ships are among the most modern in the Navy’s fleet and can be outfitted for a variety of missions, from anti-piracy to submarine tracking and special operations. They’re designed to operate in shallow coastal waters and travel at a top speed of more than 40 knots.

Singapore is a city-state that carries outsized influence because of its strategic location along the Straits of Malacca, the main thoroughfare between the Indian and Pacific Oceans and home to some of the busiest shipping lanes in the world. It is also on the southern edge of the South China Sea, the subject of increasingly nasty territorial disputes with Vietnam, the Philippines and other countries.

On Friday, at a meeting of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, Chinese President Hu Jintao fired the latest in a series of warning shots over attempts to mediate the disputes.

“External forces should not use any excuse to interfere,” he said, adding that it “should be resolved by the relevant sovereign states.”

Those states, in the Chinese view, do not include the U.S.

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton angered the Chinese last year when she said that the United States had a strategic interest in the South China Sea and that Washington favored a regional solution to the territorial disputes.

Permanently basing some Navy warships in Singapore would signal that the United States isn’t backing away.

U.S. officials said they are leaning toward basing two Littoral Combat Ships in Singapore but it’s still unclear whether the crews and their families will be home-ported there, similar to U.S. basing arrangements in Japan, or if the crews will rotate from somewhere else.

The U.S. Navy is already very familiar with Singapore. About 150 U.S. warships visited the port last year while passing through.

Call me the place where US DNT HAVE " a strategic interest"

reply to post by stake


Again, nothing new. US had been basing ships in that island for years, and the Brits long before that.

US does not exists to make China happy, nor any other states. As long as China plays by the rules, nothing adverse will happen.

We live in a world ruled by law, and not by MIGHT.

May China's CCP dictatship realizes that or face the consequences. No human wants war, but only peace. But if the China's CCP gov demands its way with Might, then those CCP leaders best be prepared for the price to be paid in blood - CCP leaders' blood.

repeat again

tell me the place where USA DNT HAVE " a strategic interest"

reply to post by stake


US is a trading nation, with its own resources and a dollar that is widely used.

US have no wish for wars, but only to continue the tradition of civilisation - peaceful commerce with all.

However, should those that seek to harm, disadvantage or disrupt peaceful trade - the lifeblood of humanity, then they must face the consequences of their behaviour - first by all diplomatic means, and when all else fails, Americans are not afraid to stand up against those that would destroy peaceful commerce and civilisation, even within its own shores.

Any other queries?

As far as I understand you
The whole globe is an area of U.S. national interests
and if the U.S. does not like anything in any country thеу will send troops to rectify the situation as its seen by Americans ?

reply to post by stake


The whole globe is NOT just US interest, but every nation and human as well. We mankind share this world. When one part is in trouble, EVERYONE is affected one way or another, and would need to resolve it or it will only fester and grow worse with each passing day.

US, like every other Democratic nation on Earth, does not simply lands an invasion force onto another without international due process such as diplomacy or dilligence.

Please do your homework and be more objective. It would be better if you not only read up, but COMPREHEND issues first before participating in discussions, for honest self enlightenment is always best and cherished, than to hear it from another. Not many may have that time to spare for you alone.