Russia condemns US missile-defence systems in Europe

[rooster59]

Russia condemns US missile-defence systems in Europe

Poland has broken ground at a site designed to hold interceptors for a US missile-defence system in the north of the country, drawing criticism from Russia.

NATO says it forms part of a wider system to protect Europe and the US from threats from the Middle East.

“Europe, and by extension NATO, is facing a range of new and complex security challenges,” said Robert Work, US Deputy Secretary of Defense. “Addressing these challenges will require a more capable NATO alliance, one that continues to evolve and adapt, to threats both old and new.”

However, Russian President Vladimir Putin claims the shields being activated and due to be erected in Europe are a new step to an arms race.

“These are not defence systems. It is part of the US nuclear strategic potential brought onto a periphery. And the periphery ,in this case, is Eastern Europe. Until now, the people making such decisions have lived in calm, comfort and security. Now as these elements of ballistic missile defence are deployed, we are forced to think how to neutralise emerging threats to the Russian Federation,” he warned.

On Thursday (May 12), the US activated a multi-million dollar missile shield at a Soviet-era base in Romania. It claims the barrier is a defence mechanism against missiles from Iran and so-called rogue states. However Putin told top military officials its real aim was to weaken Russia’s nuclear stockpile.

-- (c) Copyright Euronews 2016-05-14

[cocorico2558]

Well done, hold of US imperialism!

[craigt3365]

Well done, hold of US imperialism!

Not sure the governments of Ukraine and Georgia would agree with you there. Thus, the reason for many former Soviet satellite states to migrate towards the West. A bit more trust there? LOL

[The Deerhunter]

So are the missiles actually "defensive" anti-missile and/or anti-aircraft missiles, or are they "offensive nuclear deterrent" ICBM type ground strike missiles? In the latter case Putin is justified, in the former he is not. The latter seems unlikely. Perhaps Putin just wants a defenseless Poland (and Crimea and Ukraine) etc etc etc!!!!!

[fvw53]

So are the missiles actually "defensive" anti-missile and/or anti-aircraft missiles, or are they "offensive nuclear deterrent" ICBM type ground strike missiles? In the latter case Putin is justified, in the former he is not. The latter seems unlikely. Perhaps Putin just wants a defenseless Poland (and Crimea and Ukraine) etc etc etc!!!!!

Yes indeed those defense systems can only catch incoming missiles...and they cannot send anything out.

According to Cocorico2558 ...if your neighbour has a very aggressive dog you cannot put up a fence because he will consider it as intimidating...

[Class C]

So are the missiles actually "defensive" anti-missile and/or anti-aircraft missiles, or are they "offensive nuclear deterrent" ICBM type ground strike missiles? In the latter case Putin is justified, in the former he is not. The latter seems unlikely. Perhaps Putin just wants a defenseless Poland (and Crimea and Ukraine) etc etc etc!!!!!

It's pretty obvious that the equipment can be easily modified to fit short and mid range nuclear missiles. So of course this is the crux of the whole issue.

[Class C]

So are the missiles actually "defensive" anti-missile and/or anti-aircraft missiles, or are they "offensive nuclear deterrent" ICBM type ground strike missiles? In the latter case Putin is justified, in the former he is not. The latter seems unlikely. Perhaps Putin just wants a defenseless Poland (and Crimea and Ukraine) etc etc etc!!!!!

Yes indeed those defense systems can only catch incoming missiles...and they cannot send anything out.

According to Cocorico2558 ...if your neighbour has a very aggressive dog you cannot put up a fence because he will consider it as intimidating...

Are you sure ?

I think you will find that the technical base of the Aegis Ashore system allows for launching SM3 missiles and Tomahawk cruise missiles.

A shield AND a sword !

[Class C]

The Aegis Ashore System includes a land based MK 41 VLS (Vertical Launch System) equipped with SM3 missiles as part of the Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense system.

The MK 41 VLS has the capacity to fire a combination of 96 standard surface-to-air missiles as well as Tomahawk surface-to-surface missiles.

BAE Systems was awarded the contract for the MK 41 VLS mechanical components in June 2011.

[Grouse]

The issue is if it undermines the effectiveness of Russia's nuclear deterrent. If we will be able to bring down their ICBMs the balance is lost.

Dangerous. Do you not see that?

Edited May 14, 2016 by Grouse

[nausea]

Yes, Grouse. And the EU's encouragement of Ukraine was lunancy, what exactly did they think Russia was going to do. The outcome was predictable, so very predictable. I sometimes wonder where our leaders keep their brains.

[Class C]

It's extremely dangerous...

BTW here's a related article with hundreds of comments:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/may/22/us-test-fires-aegis-missile-defence-system-destined-for-europe

[Baerboxer]

So are the missiles actually "defensive" anti-missile and/or anti-aircraft missiles, or are they "offensive nuclear deterrent" ICBM type ground strike missiles? In the latter case Putin is justified, in the former he is not. The latter seems unlikely. Perhaps Putin just wants a defenseless Poland (and Crimea and Ukraine) etc etc etc!!!!!

Yes indeed those defense systems can only catch incoming missiles...and they cannot send anything out.

According to Cocorico2558 ...if your neighbour has a very aggressive dog you cannot put up a fence because he will consider it as intimidating...

Spot on. These systems do not threaten Russia in the slightest. But they do reduce the threat Russia uses to intimidate other countries.

Like all bullies Putin doesn't like have his power reduced.

[Baerboxer]

The issue is if it undermines the effectiveness of Russia's nuclear deterrent. If we will be able to bring down their ICBMs the balance is lost.

Dangerous. Do you not see that?

So your all for letting a bullying dictator decide the rules of the game.

Role on the 12th August.

[Grouse]

The issue is if it undermines the effectiveness of Russia's nuclear deterrent. If we will be able to bring down their ICBMs the balance is lost.

Dangerous. Do you not see that?

So your all for letting a bullying dictator decide the rules of the game.

Role on the 12th August.

You obviously don't understand the balance of power and stable equilibrium.

Thank god you have no power

Please ask someone to explain the issue before you inadvertently trigger Armageddon. Jesus.

[Grouse]

How many times has the USA been invaded in the last 500 years? ( oh, sorry you're not that old)

How many times has Russia?

Let's just consider Napoleon in the 18th century ( you read War and Peace?) and the NAZI operation Barbarossa. Both times, Russia came close to enihilation and suffered millions of casualties (27M in WW2 alone). Now don't you think that justifies just a tiny bit of paranoia?

I'm telling you, if we destabilise the nuclear equilibrium you will need more than a table to hide under!

Do they teach anything in schools now?

I reckon if Russia constructed an anti-missile system in Cuba ( just an example) you Americans would get a little damp in the armpits

All I am saying is, for ONCE in the last 70 years, THINK about what you are doing before doing it. Please?

[craigt3365]

Yes, Grouse. And the EU's encouragement of Ukraine was lunancy, what exactly did they think Russia was going to do. The outcome was predictable, so very predictable. I sometimes wonder where our leaders keep their brains.

Both sides, The EU and Russia, were trying to get the advantage in Ukraine. No matter what Ukraine decides, the world should support that decision. Both sides were offering goodies and support. In the end, they chose the EU. Best of luck. Same if they chose Russia. Best of luck. This decision should not be the reason for military problems.

[Grouse]

I still think that ultimately the optimum solution is to partition Ukraine. East of the Dneiper you can have a Russian buffer zone in the old coal field areas. The West side could become part of the EU ?

Edited May 14, 2016 by Grouse

[Skywalker69]

<deleted>! It´s a defence system not an attack system. Putin is arming Russia with new vapons, does he thinks the west is standing by watching.

[craigt3365]

I still think that ultimately the optimum solution is to partition Ukraine. East of the Dneiper you can have a Russian buffer zone in the old coal field areas. The West side could become part of the EU ?

But that's up to the Ukrainian's to decide. Not Russia. Not the EU. Sadly, they weren't allowed to make that decision democratically. Same with in Georgia.

[Grouse]

I still think that ultimately the optimum solution is to partition Ukraine. East of the Dneiper you can have a Russian buffer zone in the old coal field areas. The West side could become part of the EU ?

But that's up to the Ukrainian's to decide. Not Russia. Not the EU. Sadly, they weren't allowed to make that decision democratically. Same with in Georgia.

True, but for me the Dneiper is the line in the sand as it were.

[craigt3365]

I still think that ultimately the optimum solution is to partition Ukraine. East of the Dneiper you can have a Russian buffer zone in the old coal field areas. The West side could become part of the EU ?

But that's up to the Ukrainian's to decide. Not Russia. Not the EU. Sadly, they weren't allowed to make that decision democratically. Same with in Georgia.

True, but for me the Dneiper is the line in the sand as it were.

Russia's annexation of Crimea and their ongoing support for the rebels in Ukraine is one big reason for this system. Give back Crimea, take your troops out of Ukraine and things will calm down. Can't blame the West for this.

[happy Joe]

The United States intervened massively during the war 39/45 exclusively to prevent the Russians to win alone against Hitler. In this register, all the rhetoric about transatlantic friendship and solidarity between peoples brothers should be put away carefully in folklore category.

Today they pretend to help Europe who demand nothing, always to block any new covenant EU / Russia.

They missed their shot with Ukraine in finding that the Crimea and the entire northeast of this country remain overwhelmingly pro Russia.

So they are trying a new aggressive maneuver with weaker countries with manipulable and permanently corrupt leaders.

[craigt3365]

The United States intervened massively during the war 39/45 exclusively to prevent the Russians to win alone against Hitler. In this register, all the rhetoric about transatlantic friendship and solidarity between peoples brothers should be put away carefully in folklore category.

Today they pretend to help Europe who demand nothing, always to block any new covenant EU / Russia.

They missed their shot with Ukraine in finding that the Crimea and the entire northeast of this country remain overwhelmingly pro Russia.

So they are trying a new aggressive maneuver with weaker countries with manipulable and permanently corrupt leaders.

Hmmm...I think there are many things the US does to help the EU. And many things the EU does to help the US. As well as the rest of the world. Some are doing well, others not so well.

I think you underestimate the knowledge of world leaders. They know exactly what's going on in Ukraine. They know more than we'll ever know. But yes, things are getting worse because of your last statement. Which is a black mark on the reputation of Russia. And thus, the missile shield.

[thaihome]

How many times has the USA been invaded in the last 500 years? ( oh, sorry you're not that old)

How many times has Russia?

Let's just consider Napoleon in the 18th century ( you read War and Peace?) and the NAZI operation Barbarossa. Both times, Russia came close to enihilation and suffered millions of casualties (27M in WW2 alone). Now don't you think that justifies just a tiny bit of paranoia?

I'm telling you, if we destabilise the nuclear equilibrium you will need more than a table to hide under!

Do they teach anything in schools now?

I reckon if Russia constructed an anti-missile system in Cuba ( just an example) you Americans would get a little damp in the armpits

All I am saying is, for ONCE in the last 70 years, THINK about what you are doing before doing it. Please?

What threat would that anti missile system in Cuba be addressing? It would not be Russia as the ballistic missile path from US to Russia goes nowhere near Cuba. What treaty ally would Russia be protecting with a system in Cuba? None as Russia has no treaty allies in the western hemisphere. So a Russian anti missile system in Cuba is not the same as a US one in the NATO countries of Ruminia and Poland where the the US is treat bound to help protect. That is known as a false equivalent. Something you see a lot of here.

This is about Iran, not Russia. The anti missile system in Ruminia and Poland would be ineffective against missiles fired from Russia, they are too close and they cannot catch up.

Perhaps you should think for once before you do knee jerk reaction about the US.

Th

[Class C]

If you think about it, the system is not really for the protection of NATO countries because Aegis is an anti-ballistic missile system, not a defence against all types of missiles.

Russia doesn't need ballistic missiles to attack European targets, cruise missiles will do and cruise missiles cannot be intercepted by the Aegis system.

So the only country that is really protected by this system is the US.

The US is laughing and Romania is the greater fool.

[craigt3365]

If you think about it, the system is not really for the protection of NATO countries because Aegis is an anti-ballistic missile system, not a defence against all types of missiles.

Russia doesn't need ballistic missiles to attack European targets, cruise missiles will do and cruise missiles cannot be intercepted by the Aegis system.

So the only country that is really protected by this system is the US.

The US is laughing and Romania is the greater fool.

So you're saying Iran doesn't have ballistic missiles that can reach Europe? For sure they can't reach the US. So I would guess an anti-ballastic missile system in Europe would primarily help protect Europe? Just thinking here. LOL

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/us-missile-shield-romania_us_5734344ae4b060aa781967e4

“Iran’s systems can reach into parts of Europe, including Romania,” Rose said, before heading to the site to join U.S. Deputy Defense Secretary Robert Work and NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg for a ribbon-cutting ceremony at 0900 GMT.

Doesn't seem Romania is a fool in this regard.

[Grouse]

Do you think the Russians are fools?

I would not bet on it

Issue is if they think the ABMS affects their ability to counteract USA ICBMs . Nobody gives a rats ass about Iran.

Strategic detererence is the issue. Did you watch Dr Strangelove. Recommended! What was the name of that guy who rode the missile? Was it Slim Pikkins or something?

[thaihome]

Do you think the Russians are fools?

I would not bet on it

Issue is if they think the ABMS affects their ability to counteract USA ICBMs . Nobody gives a rats ass about Iran.

Strategic detererence is the issue. Did you watch Dr Strangelove. Recommended! What was the name of that guy who rode the missile? Was it Slim Pikkins or something?

I'm sorry, but you will need to explain to me a how anti missile system in Romania or Poland is a deterrent to an ICBM missle launched from Russia to the US. Have you ever looked at a world globe? Any ICBMS targeted at the US from Russia will come via the polar route. Which is why the US spent billions on DEW (now decommissioned) in the 60''s.

I can only assume that you are so wrapped up in your knee jerk anti US (as other posters) perspective that you refuse to to actually look at the graphic I posted and see that this is about protecting Europe from missles launched from the middle east. But you can continue to promote Putin's internal political proganda line if you wish.

TH

[Grouse]

Do you think the Russians are fools?

I would not bet on it

Issue is if they think the ABMS affects their ability to counteract USA ICBMs . Nobody gives a rats ass about Iran.

Strategic detererence is the issue. Did you watch Dr Strangelove. Recommended! What was the name of that guy who rode the missile? Was it Slim Pikkins or something?

I'm sorry, but you will need to explain to me a how anti missile system in Romania or Poland is a deterrent to an ICBM missle launched from Russia to the US. Have you ever looked at a world globe? Any ICBMS targeted at the US from Russia will come via the polar route. Which is why the US spent billions on DEW (now decommissioned) in the 60''s.

I can only assume that you are so wrapped up in your knee jerk anti US (as other posters) perspective that you refuse to to actually look at the graphic I posted and see that this is about protecting Europe from missles launched from the middle east. But you can continue to promote Putin's internal political proganda line if you wish.

TH

I take your point of course

But its not my opinion that counts, its Putin's

I have no idea where they want to aim their missiles

[thaihome]

Do you think the Russians are fools?

I would not bet on it

Issue is if they think the ABMS affects their ability to counteract USA ICBMs . Nobody gives a rats ass about Iran.

Strategic detererence is the issue. Did you watch Dr Strangelove. Recommended! What was the name of that guy who rode the missile? Was it Slim Pikkins or something?

I'm sorry, but you will need to explain to me a how anti missile system in Romania or Poland is a deterrent to an ICBM missle launched from Russia to the US. Have you ever looked at a world globe? Any ICBMS targeted at the US from Russia will come via the polar route. Which is why the US spent billions on DEW (now decommissioned) in the 60''s.

I can only assume that you are so wrapped up in your knee jerk anti US (as other posters) perspective that you refuse to to actually look at the graphic I posted and see that this is about protecting Europe from missles launched from the middle east. But you can continue to promote Putin's internal political proganda line if you wish.

TH

I take your point of course

But its not my opinion that counts, its Putin's

I have no idea where they want to aim their missiles

Putin only cares about domestic politics. As long as he can continue to beat the drum of Russia nationalism and keep the shambles that is the Russian economy off the voters mind, he is golden. You can safely ignore just about everything he says.

TH