| Author |
Message |
    
Kerensa
hunter
Username: Kerensa
Post Number: 441
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 19, 2007 - 10:11 pm: |     |
What are your thoughts about this? Is a missile defense shield in Europe really necessary?
Merkel Urges US to Consult Allies
http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,472508,00.html
German Chancellor Angela Merkel is urging the US government to engage in a broader discussion about the missile defense shield it plans to erect in Poland and the Czech Republic to protect it from enemy missiles.
German Chancellor Angela Merkel has urged the US to refrain from acting unilaterally with its plans to erect a missile defense shield in Poland and the Czech Republic.
"We should always make sure that we discuss everything in a spirit of trust to avoid rifts," Merkel said in a speech to a conference on trans-Atlantic economic cooperation in Berlin. "No one can master the new challenges on their own." She said that applied to the European Union as well as the United States. The German chancellor was in Poland on Friday and Saturday to press its leaders to back a broader discussion on the missile shield within NATO.
Merkel's remarks follow strong comments from German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier who said it was important not to let the US project spark a new arms race in Europe nearly two decades after the end of the Cold War.
"A missile defense system should be neither a cause of, nor a pretext for, a new arms race," Steinmeier wrote in an op-ed piece for the newspaper Frankfurter Allgemeine Sonntagszeitung.
"Our top priority remains disarmament and not an arms buildup," he wrote. "We don't want a new arms race in Europe."
Steinmeier, who is due to meet US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice in Washington on Monday to discuss trans-Atlantic ties, has been one of the strongest European critics of Washington's handling of the missile shield plan.
Last month he criticized Washington for not consulting Russia on the missile project. Moscow sees it as an encroachment on its former sphere of influence and an attempt to shift the post-Cold War balance of power.
The United States intends to deploy missiles in Poland and part of a radar system in the Czech Republic to help counter a possible threat of long-range missile attacks. US officials have said the shield would counter threats from what it calls "rogue states" such as Iran and would not pose a threat to Moscow.
Meanwhile the Czech village of Trokavec, which is only 2 kilometers (1.2 miles) from where the planned US radar site for the missile shield is to be based, voted against the plan in a referendum on Saturday with an overwhelming majority of 71 of the 72 votes cast.
"That's a clear signal to the government that it shouldn't negotiate without us," said Jan Neoral, the mayor of Trokavec, which is about 72 kilometers (45 miles) from the Czech capital Prague. The villagers fear that the radar system would pose a risk to public health and make them a target for attacks.
While the Trokavec vote was symbolic, peace activists have begun to organize demonstrations against Prime Minister Mirek Topolanek's center-right government.
Several hundred members of a group called "No To Bases" marched through the center of Prague on Sunday. Jan Tamas, its spokesman, told the BBC that "if we want to have security, then we need to begin disarming, not creating new weapons."
According to a survey by CVVM, an independent opinion polling agency in Prague, six out of 10 Czechs are opposed to having the radar station in their country.
cro/Reuters/AP/dpa/ddp
----------
Missile Shield May Divide Europe
http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,472538,00.html
US plans for a missile defense shield in Eastern Europe to deflect an Iranian missile attack risks dividing the continent and could open rifts within the German government, write German newspaper commentators.
The idea has been controversial from the start. The US wants to erect a missile shield -- which would include stations in Eastern Europe -- to guard against possible missile attacks from Iran and other "rogue states" as the US has called them.
But Russia feels threatened by the proposal. And in many countries in Europe, the idea recalls images of the Cold War and the arms race which saw thousands of ballistic missiles stationed on European soil. Over the weekend, German Chancellor Angela Merkel joined the debate and urged the US government to engage in a broader debate before it erects its planned missile system in Poland and the Czech Republic.
German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier, too, warned on Sunday that the missile shield could spark a new arms race and divide Europe. On Monday, German commentators join the debate.
Business daily Financial Times Deutschland writes:
"In Berlin this is rightly seen as an issue that could tear open new deep rifts in Europe between those who want the defense shield and those who understand Russia's criticism. But also between Europe and the US.
"Further talks within NATO will fail to settle this dispute. Washington informed all parties, including Russia, long ago. NATO doesn't want to build its own defense system, so the US will implement the project bilaterally with the Eastern Europeans. Germany in the end will have to decide whether it assigns more weight to Russia's concerns or America's."
The dispute could also cause rifts within the German government coalition of conservatives and Social Democrats, the paper writes. While the SPD opposes the defense shield, Merkel and her conservatives have stopped short of a rejection.
"In the SPD there is growing outrage at the US armament plans, among the conservatives there is growing skepticism about (Russian President Vladimir) Putin. It's perfect material for coalition fights and election campaigns."
Conservative daily Die Welt writes:
"To this day there has been nothing that even comes close to a reliable missile missile defense shield. Neither the US nor Israel, nor Russia, to say nothing of Europe, have mastered the art of shooting down a missile hurtling through space with a second missile. The probability of deterrence has also declined. World history with the rise of aggressive medium-sized powers has overtaken the coarse balance of the Cold War.
"Neither Washington nor Moscow want to wait and see whether the nuclear threat works on apocalyptic prophets. That is why both sides have long been working on missile defense systems of limited range and capacity..."
"The logical conclusion: The American defense system should be put under the auspices of NATO and should be coordinated with the Russians -- that would put an end to all the excitement."
-- David Crossland, 3:00 p.m. CET |
Scott
flint knapper
Username: Scott
Post Number: 1891
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 28, 2007 - 10:33 pm: | |
I am not sure if the question should be is it necessary, but is it possible? Being so close to potential enemies (Russia?), would make the response time very close to the edge of technical possibilities. We've already pissed the Russians off with the expansion of NATO, do we really need this to add to the growing call within Russia for a response?
MAD has worked for decades, why screw with it now? I think the EU needs to get its act together and field a real, effective standing army and in the meantime concentrate on upholding its NATO commitments, rather than worrying about a missile shield.
I agree though with the last sentence of Crossland's article - if we have to pursue this, it should be done WITH the Russians.
Scott
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Ces gens, Jondalar, ils sourient. Ils me sourient. - Ayla |
Da_bear
flint knapper
Username: Da_bear
Post Number: 895
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 29, 2007 - 1:26 pm: | |
OMIGOD, I am agreeing with Scott.
BUT, Europe enjoys griping about the US and then begging for its military too much to invest in their own safety. Too many europeans brag about how much they DON'T spend of the military. That smugness isn't going to go away. Their helplessness is Bosnia didn't phase it. I don't know what it will take.
Russia bothers me. Democratic actions have pretty well disappeared.
Europe had better prepare for energy politics and blackmail.
If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice. |
Scott
flint knapper
Username: Scott
Post Number: 1892
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 29, 2007 - 3:33 pm: | |
Tell me about it, I must have died and gone to hell or something! 
It is time for the EU to learn to walk on its own - and of course being a part of NATO, we will back it up. Canada's military will have doubled in 5 years - if only to protect our sovereignty in the north - and still it is a tiny drop in the bucket - but the right direction. We and the EU and others cannot simultaneously complain about US hegemony and expect them to come to our rescue at the same time. Afghanistan is an interesting test case: The Brits, the Aussies (not members of NATO), Belgians, and the Canadians are pulling their weight and then some along with the majority US forces. But the EU is dragging its feet with some 190 exclusions and rules such as not fighting at night or deploying to dangerous areas. This post is not a criticism of that, just a fact to show the need for EU military reform.
If Russia turns off the energy tap to Europe, what will the EU do? Are preparations being made? If the US pulls out of Europe (there are precedents for this) how will the EU fill the void?
Forget a shield, get an effective standing army up and running first!
Scott
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Ces gens, Jondalar, ils sourient. Ils me sourient. - Ayla |
Ted
hunter
Username: Ted
Post Number: 541
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, March 29, 2007 - 8:53 pm: | |
(bear) OMIGOD, I am agreeing with Scott.
Watch it, mate, that's a slippery slope you're on!
Just because europe relies on the US, even if it's just for the implied threat (principally to the Russians, but european bases are important staging areas for other countries rattling sabres, like Libya) of its military bases in places like Germany, does not mean it has to roll over and ask for its tummy to be tickled.
Those bases are important for the US as well, and in fact if they weren't seen as important for US interests, they would not be there.
It was Kissinger who said "nations don't have friends. They have interests"
Indeed, Russia seems ready to turn the energy tap on and off as it suits its interests. The US did the same to the Japanese, and got Pearl Harbor as a result.
Ted
Do not go gentle into that good night...Rage, rage against the dying of the light
Benjamin Disraeli: "The Jews are a nervous people. Nineteen centuries of Christian love have taken a toll." |
Da_bear
flint knapper
Username: Da_bear
Post Number: 896
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 30, 2007 - 12:40 pm: | |
I don't argue that Ted. BUT, the bases can be moved to where they will do more good. They amount to a massive subsidy of some of the richest countries in the world.
As long as Europe want to 1)be protected, 2)be smug about how stupid the US is for building bombs, 3) accept this massive subsidy, and 4) call in the warmonger US when they are helpless then they really don't have a leg to stand on.
An army deployment that can 1)refuse to be deployed, or fight, 2) will not deploy at night, 3)will not deploy if there is likelyhood of combat, is NOT a military force.
I don't know what it is, but it ain't an army.
The bases are US soil. If the Eu wants the "shield" not deployed, let them forbid it. I have no problem with removing/downsizing/relocating our bases. Our military as a whole needs to be downsized. The rest of the world needs to take up the slack or accept the unrest and other problems a strong US presence being gone will mean.
I am by NO means an isolationist, but if the rest of the world wants the US to pull the vast majority of the weight, and they also want to be full and equal partners, then they can stuff it.
I WANT them to be equal partners, but, evidently, they don't want to risk their blood and treasure defending themselves, only the US's. Then they want to tell us how to do it. If your not going to do your fair share, then don't tell those who are how to do it.
As I see it, the majority of Europe considers security an unimportant matter, based on their actions. If its that unimportant, then ask the bases to be downsized or removed. The downsizing is already started, the moving is being negotiated.
If they want it sped up, fine with me.
If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice. |
Ted
hunter
Username: Ted
Post Number: 542
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Friday, March 30, 2007 - 1:28 pm: | |
The ***only*** reason the bases are there at all is because the US wants them there.
That is why the EU feels confident about setting its own terms for the bases and how much they are willing to contribute.
When the EU feels it has the US over a barrel, they will play it for all it is worth, giving as little as they can for the maximum return.
Gratitude has little place in international relations. To think otherwise is to live in a fool's paradise.
That's the way diplomacy (and business, for that matter) works.
Ted
Do not go gentle into that good night...Rage, rage against the dying of the light
Benjamin Disraeli: "The Jews are a nervous people. Nineteen centuries of Christian love have taken a toll." |
Da_bear
flint knapper
Username: Da_bear
Post Number: 897
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 30, 2007 - 2:29 pm: | |
That is why two bases closed last September, and more are preparing to move to Bulgaria.
The 1st ID is moving back to the US, and only two air bases are currently active.
Negotiations are underway to move them.
If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice. |
Kerensa
hunter
Username: Kerensa
Post Number: 443
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 30, 2007 - 7:12 pm: | |
I can't debate this with you because I am just against the shield or shields.
But I found this for you.
And thanks for your interesting posts!
Russia to respond to U.S. missile shield plans in Europe
17:03 | 28/ 03/ 2007
MOSCOW, March 28 (RIA Novosti) - Russia will be guided by a principle of "reasonable sufficiency" in its response to U.S. missile shield plans in Europe, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov told Germany's Handelsblatt newspaper Wednesday.
"Russia is ready to open its eyes wide to unfolding developments," Lavrov said. "We cannot stay indifferent to our partners' unwillingness to consider the problem collectively, to estimate potential threats, which have not yet materialized, and to adopt and implement joint decisions," the Russian official said.
Washington has announced its intention to deploy elements of its missile shield in Poland and the Czech Republic, citing possible threats from Iran or North Korea as a reason for the program, and will soon begin consultations with these countries.
On Wednesday, the Czech government confirmed that it will begin official talks with the U.S. on the deployment of the system on its territory. The negotiations will start as soon as possible, and will last through the end of 2007.
Czech Prime Minister Mirek Topolanek has spoken out in support of the initiative, saying it met his country's national interests and would reinforce its defense capabilities and raise the security of the country and of Europe as a whole.
Polish Prime Minister Jaroslaw Kaczynski has said elements of the U.S. missile shield in Poland would guarantee that the country is no longer under Moscow's influence.
Lavrov said the United States had so far failed to offer a clear explanation of its hasty unilateral efforts, which "provoke concern."
"We will have to formulate an answer, since Russia's security should and will be ensured in any event," the Russian foreign minister said.
Lavrov believes that the U.S. plans could erode the continent's strategic stability and damage the regime of "checks and balances" in global politics.
Russia is also worried over the silos used for U.S. interceptors, which "dangerously copy the launch mechanisms for intercontinental ballistic missiles."
The minister said Russia could not move aside from the issue, since the European shield will be part of a global missile defense system, whose elements have been drawing closer to Russian borders.
"The parameters of a missile defense system in Europe are being fixed unilaterally, which affects the interests of all European countries and, of course, of Russia," the Russian minister said in an interview.
Lavrov said U.S. plans dismissed the possibility of collective missile defense efforts in Europe, and actually brushed aside the possibility of settling proliferation issues through political and diplomatic means, a tendency reflected in talks on North Korea's nuclear program and the situation surrounding Iran.
"An analysis of statements by U.S. officials prompts a conclusion that Washington does not wish to rely on relevant multilateral efforts involving its international partners," Lavrov said.
"Decisions that will determine our fate and that of future European generations are being taken without our participation," Lavrov said. "A serious discussion of the issue would be appropriate and should be held now," he concluded.
U.S. plans to deploy elements of the missile shield in Central Europe are expected to cost $1.6 billion over the next five years. The program will later be expanded to include sea-based missiles and missile tracking systems in space.
U.S. Deputy Assistant Defense Secretary Brian Green regretted Russia's refusal to accept the missile shield, but promised to inform Moscow about progress in the program and to look into opportunities for future cooperation on the issue.
Some European Union officials, including German Chancellor Angela Merkel, have called on the U.S. to coordinate its missile defense program with NATO.
http://en.rian.ru/russia/20070328/62748484.html
If you scroll down there are a some more articles |
Ted
hunter
Username: Ted
Post Number: 543
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Friday, March 30, 2007 - 10:48 pm: | |
From:
http://www.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?fsID=166
quote:
U.S. Air Forces in Europe, with headquarters at Ramstein Air Base, Germany, is a major command of the U.S. Air Force. It is also the air component of the U.S. European Command, a Department of Defense unified command.
(snip)
In support of national and NATO requirements, USAFE assets stand ready to perform close air support, air interdiction, air defense, in-flight refueling, long-range transport and support of maritime operations. USAFE remains a formidable force despite a rapid drawdown that saw its main operating bases cut by 67 percent following the end of the Cold War. As witnessed in the command's support of contingency and humanitarian operations throughout Europe and parts of Africa, USAFE remains a highly responsive and capable combat force.
Personnel and Resources
More than 41,000 active-duty, Reserve and civilian employees are assigned to USAFE. Equipment assets include about 220 fighter, attack, tanker and transport aircraft, and a full complement of conventional weapons.
From:
http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?storyID=123010866
6/24/2005 - WASHINGTON (AFPN) -- The transformation taking place throughout the Defense Department started early for U.S. Air Forces in Europe, which began reshaping and repositioning its assets 15 years ago and is now better prepared to support the war on terrorism, the command's top officer said June 23.
Gen. Robert H. "Doc" Foglesong said USAFE began returning much of its force structure to the United States after the Cold War ended, and it became evident that the United States no longer had to prepare to face off against the Soviet Union at the Fulda Gap, a heavily defended corridor separating former West Germany and East Germany.
To me this doesn't look like the US taking its cricket bat and going home. It looks like a sensible redeployment of its resources, which one would hope would be an ongoing affair.
Like I said, nations have interests. And when so much is being spent on the quagmire of Iraq, something has to give in any case.
However, should Russia rear its evil empire head again, no doubt the US would look after its interests in europe also.
Bush going after the "guy who tried to kill my dad" aside, one would hope that emotions such as you posit would form no part of a hard nosed defence capability.
Ted
Do not go gentle into that good night...Rage, rage against the dying of the light
Benjamin Disraeli: "The Jews are a nervous people. Nineteen centuries of Christian love have taken a toll." |
Da_bear
flint knapper
Username: Da_bear
Post Number: 898
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, March 31, 2007 - 4:19 am: | |
Where am I saying its emotional?
It economics.
If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice. |
Ted
hunter
Username: Ted
Post Number: 544
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, March 31, 2007 - 7:13 am: | |
(bear) where am I saying its emotional?
Here:
quote:Europe enjoys griping about the US and then begging for its military too much to invest in their own safety. Too many europeans brag about how much they DON'T spend of the military. That smugness isn't going to go away.
and here:
quote:
As long as Europe want to 1)be protected, 2)be smug about how stupid the US is for building bombs, 3) accept this massive subsidy, and 4) call in the warmonger US when they are helpless then they really don't have a leg to stand on.
An army deployment that can 1)refuse to be deployed, or fight, 2) will not deploy at night, 3)will not deploy if there is likelyhood of combat, is NOT a military force.
I don't know what it is, but it ain't an army.
The bases are US soil. If the Eu wants the "shield" not deployed, let them forbid it. I have no problem with removing/downsizing/relocating our bases. Our military as a whole needs to be downsized. The rest of the world needs to take up the slack or accept the unrest and other problems a strong US presence being gone will mean.
to me in those posts you are implying that:
The EU should be grateful to the US for its presence, not smug and giving them advice about bombs
If the EU does not grovel to the US, or at least act more grateful, and give the US carte blanche to do as it pleases on its own soil (the US bases) then the US is within its rights to remove its bases.
this bit:
quote:
If the Eu wants the "shield" not deployed, let them forbid it. I have no problem with removing/downsizing/relocating our bases.
has the implicit threat/blackmail/emotional argument that the US will remove the bases if the EU does not want the "shield" deployed.
Of course you personally cannot order such an event, but you appear to be expressing a positive emotion about the results should the US pull out of europe.
Which is extremely unlikely to happen - unless the strategists decide and can convince the powers that be that this is the best course of action for the US.
It is unlikely, because for the present the US wants bases in europe where it can have a rapid response to anything at all that comes up which threatens US interests. I see nothing wrong with that, that is the function of a government.
quote:accept this massive subsidy, and 4) call in the warmonger US when they are helpless then they really don't have a leg to stand on.
Don't you see this as emotional language? I do.
Ted
Do not go gentle into that good night...Rage, rage against the dying of the light
Benjamin Disraeli: "The Jews are a nervous people. Nineteen centuries of Christian love have taken a toll." |
Darsina
hunter
Username: Darsina
Post Number: 501
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 02, 2007 - 9:29 pm: | |
quote:If Russia turns off the energy tap to Europe, what will the EU do? Are preparations being made?
There's only a couple European countries that have considerable amounts of natural gas and crude oil. One of these, Norway, isn't part of the EU, knowing fully well that they're nonetheless allowed to take part in the game particularly due to their natural resources. The other one, the UK, isn't overly much fond of being truly European either.
As for preparations being made, unfortunately there are hardly any that would have long-term effects. Of course storage capacities have been increased and we're on the look for additional partners. Yet you notice a still increasing attraction of Russian resources, caused by the quality drawbacks (high sulfur, high acidity, no or little capability for bitumen production, ...) compared to, say, Arabian crudes that result in a lower price.}
Thinking is the work of the intellect, dreaming its enjoyment. - Victor Hugo |
Scott
flint knapper
Username: Scott
Post Number: 1895
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 03, 2007 - 3:34 am: | |
Kerensa, thanks for the article. I am against the shield too - most Canadians are and we opted out - good or bad, a debate for another thread - but I am against a shield in Europe because it makes the Russians nervous and we have enough problems with autocratic Russia as it is - include them or don't do it. So, the EU should reign in its member nations or what's the point of being the EU?
What about LPNG (low pressure natural gas) terminals and vessels so that gas can be brought in from say Canada or other offshore areas? Is Europe investing in that technology? I see a pipeline from Azerbaijan through Turkey has been completed and I suspect that will be used to fuel Europe?
What do you mean about no capability for bitumen production? Russia? Could you clarify?
Is there a case to be made for going back to nuclear?
Scott
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Ces gens, Jondalar, ils sourient. Ils me sourient. - Ayla |
Darsina
hunter
Username: Darsina
Post Number: 502
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 03, 2007 - 6:31 am: | |
quote:What about LPNG (low pressure natural gas) terminals and vessels so that gas can be brought in from say Canada or other offshore areas?
I know at least about one LPNG terminal that's currently being built. Not sure, however, how long it will take until the first cargo can be dispatched there.
quote:I see a pipeline from Azerbaijan through Turkey has been completed and I suspect that will be used to fuel Europe?
You're right on about the new gas pipeline, Nabucco. It routes natural gas from fields in the Middle East and Asia to Europe, particularly to Austria where it's distributed further via a major gas hub. That way it highly dicreases Austria's and Italy's dependancy on Russian natural gas. I suspect that Germany will also participate in that project, but AFAIK the're much tighter associated with Russia as far as the gas market is concerned. It's scheduled to start working in 2009.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nabucco_Pipeline
quote:What do you mean about no capability for bitumen production? Russia?
I was talking about the crude oil itself, not the country. There are only a couple crudes that can be used for production of quality bitumen. It depends on the paraffin content of the crude's vacuum residue that determines its adhesive powers and durability. Most crudes don't fulfill that requirement, their vacuum residue can only be used for heavy fuel oil production. You still might try to apply it onto the streets, as Eastern Germany had to do under Soviet reign when they had no access to real bitumen crudes. Don't know if you ever had the chance to rumble over their motorways during those days, no fun indeed.
Bitumen crudes that are of interest for the European market (don't know about the Americas) mainly come from Saudi Arabia and partly also from Iran. One Russian crude, the so called Russian Export Blend, can be used as extender crude in bitumen crude mixtures, but it's no good for bitumen production on its own.
quote:Is there a case to be made for going back to nuclear?
It's indeed in discussion to invest in new nuclear power plants, particularly in France and the Czech Republic. There's currently a program running to boost alternative "green" technologies, and they tried to lump nuclear power into that group. With no success so far, though.}
Thinking is the work of the intellect, dreaming its enjoyment. - Victor Hugo |
Ted
hunter
Username: Ted
Post Number: 545
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 03, 2007 - 9:56 am: | |
In Oz, nuclear plants are being touted by our esteemed prime minister as the solution to greenhouse problems.
No need to sign the Kyoto agreement, we'll just go nuclear.
Except that nuclear plants are neither economically nor politically viable in Australia.
Coal fired plants cost less than half of nuclear, there's no place in Oz that wants nuclear (NIMBY) and there's nobody who is willing to put up the money to put one nuclear plant (or a lot) up.
Ted
Do not go gentle into that good night...Rage, rage against the dying of the light
Benjamin Disraeli: "The Jews are a nervous people. Nineteen centuries of Christian love have taken a toll." |
Kerensa
hunter
Username: Kerensa
Post Number: 452
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 27, 2007 - 4:34 pm: | |
Putin angers the US what will they do now? I expect that it will be a long process before they get a result.
MISSILE SHIELD ROW HEATS UP
Putin Plays Hard Ball as Rice Reassures 'Soviets'
Russian President Vladimir Putin has declared a moratorium on a 1990 arms control treaty in response to US plans for a missile shield in Europe. Condoleezza Rice, meanwhile, has blasted Moscow's fears as being "ludicrous."
Russian President Vladimir Putin announced Thursday that Russia will impose a moratorium on an arms control deal with NATO.
Conflict over plans by the United States to build a missile defense shield in Europe continues to grow, with Moscow proving resistant to American attempts to include Russia and US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice slowly losing patience with the "Soviets."
The rhetoric heated up Thursday as Putin, in his annual speech to both houses of parliament, said he was suspending Russia's obligations under the 1990 Conventional Forces in Europe (CFE) treaty, in response to the US missile shield plans. He said the NATO signatories to the treaty were not respecting it, and criticized US plans to locate elements of the anti-missile defense shield in Eastern Europe, saying they create "real dangers and possibly unpleasant surprises." The US claims that the planned missile shield is intended to protect the US and its European allies from a ballistic missile attack from a so-called "rogue" state such as Iran.
"(NATO countries) are ... building up military bases on our borders and, more than that, they are also planning to station elements of anti-missile defense systems in Poland and the Czech Republic," Putin said. "In this connection, I consider it expedient to declare a moratorium on Russia's implementation of this treaty -- in any case, until all countries of the world have ratified and started to strictly implement it. ... I propose discussing this problem in the NATO-Russia Council, and, should there be no progress in the negotiations, to look at the possibility of ceasing our commitments under the CFE treaty."
The 1990 treaty between NATO and the then Warsaw Pact imposed limits on conventional weapons in Europe for both sides. It was later adapted in 1999. However the NATO states have refused to ratify the adapted version of the pact until Russia withdraws its troops from Georgia and Moldova, angering Moscow.
Rice is not impressed by Russian fears of the missile shield.
Putin made the announcement as US Secretary of State Rice and NATO counterparts prepared to meet Russia's Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov at a NATO-Russia meeting in Oslo. The missile shield plans are expected to dominate the two-day talks.
Rice, speaking before Putin's speech, dismissed Russian concerns that the missile shield could pose a threat to Russia, calling the idea "ludicrous." She also accused the Russians of being stuck in a Cold War mentality -- even as she herself mistakenly referred to Russia as "Soviet."
"The idea that somehow 10 interceptors and a few radars in Eastern Europe are going to threaten the Soviet strategic deterrent is purely ludicrous and everybody knows it," she told reporters ahead of the Oslo meeting. "The Russians have thousands of warheads. The idea that you can somehow stop the Russian strategic nuclear deterrent with a few interceptors just doesn't make sense."
Rice said the United States was willing to keep talking to Russian officials to "demystify" the missile shield -- a project about which some European allies also have misgivings. "We are very happy to continue this dialogue but we have to continue on a basis of a realistic assessments of what we are proposing, not one that is grounded somehow in the 1980s," said Rice.
US Defense Secretary Robert Gates tried to win support for the plan this week during visits to Russia, Poland and Germany, where he attempted to get Russia on board as a partner in the project. "The days of the Cold War are over and no one should seek a return to them," Gates said after meetings in Moscow on Monday. "We invite Russia to join our defensive endeavor as a partner."
Gates said that the missile shield was planned with an eye to future geopolitical developments and is intended to protect against both states and non-state groups which could acquire long-range strike capabilities in the medium term. "We aren't talking about tomorrow or next year but rather thinking about what the world might look like in 10 or 20 years," Gates told reporters in Poland on Tuesday.
Gates and Rice continued the charm offensive with a guest op-ed piece in Germany's center-left daily Süddeutsche Zeitung on Thursday entitled "We Do Not Want a New Arms Race." In the editorial, the two politicians emphasize that the planned system is strictly for defensive purposes. "The system that we are envisioning is limited and the (defensive) missiles are not equipped with warheads," they write. "This system is completely useless against a huge arsenal of nuclear and ballistic missiles such as that of Russia. Talk of a new 'arms race' with Russia is anachronistic and unrealistic."
Diplomats are reported to not be expecting much progress from the meeting with Lavrov. Russia's "bloodcurdling" rhetoric -- to quote one senior NATO diplomat -- has rattled some in Western Europe, who fear the damage done to relations with the Kremlin will outweigh any benefits of the proposed missile shield.
German Deputy Foreign Minister Gernot Erler told the Berliner Zeitung newspaper in an interview in its Wednesday edition that at least six unnamed allies -- including Germany -- had raised doubts about the project at a NATO meeting last week.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,479621,00.htmlMISSILE
dgs/ap/reuters |
SuSe (Unregistered Guest)
visitor
| | Posted on Friday, May 18, 2007 - 12:56 am: | |
You all always talk about Europe as a Unit (a United States of Europe). And indeed, that's what were trying to achieve. But we're still far away of the point of a united Europe. The countries are still far more separate than united. But we're getting closer (only with little Steps, but constantly) and one day there will hopefully be a Europe which is united in peace and order. The USA eventually didn't become a unit in one day, too.
Greeez,
suse |
Angakuk
flint knapper
Username: Angakuk
Post Number: 690
Registered: 6-2005
| | Posted on Friday, May 18, 2007 - 10:08 pm: | |
SuSe:You all always talk about Europe as a Unit (a United States of Europe).
Just who is guilty of doing that? Care to provide some examples? Most of the posters here are reasonably knowledgeable folks and are usually careful to make distinctions between the EU and individual European nations. Certainly, on the subject of the Missile Shield, it has been made clear that there is not a unified European point of view.
To dare is to lose one's footing momentarily; not to dare is to lose oneself.
- Soren Kierkegaard
|
SuSe (Unregistered Guest)
visitor
| | Posted on Saturday, May 19, 2007 - 3:11 am: | |
Quote:
Certainly, on the subject of the Missile Shield, it has been made clear that there is not a unified European point of view.
That's what I was trying to say! |
|
Head-Clash-In