Putin calls Bush\'s bluff over the anti missile system - is Putin right?

      Home » World events & politics » Putin calls Bush's bluff over the anti missile system - is Putin right?

Putin calls Bush's bluff over the anti missile system - is Putin right?

Bush has been telling the Russians that the anti missile system that is to be installed in Eastern European states is not to stop Russian missiles but Iranian. Putin responds by offering to help install an anti missile system right on the Iranian border in Azerbaijan.

I never thought I'd say this, but I actually feel a modicum of pity for Russia and Putin (even though Putin is a hegemonist wanting to return to the old militaristic USSR ).

Ever since the Soviet Union disolved it seems that the West has still been locked in the cold war mentality. Russia was refuesd entry into the European Union, refused entry into NATO, and locked out of many forms of international aid.

Now this anti missile shield and its farcical explanation that its to stop Iranain and North Korean missiles. It is bluntly obvious when looking at a map that its right between Europe and Russian, its not between Europe and Iran.

So Putin has called the bluff and offered to put the system right on the Iranain border. An ideal place.

Russian President Vladimir Putin turned the tables on Washington today by suggesting the United States use a Russian-controlled radar instead of US anti-missile hardware in central Europe.

At a meeting with US President George W. Bush during a Group of Eight summit, Putin proposed that the United States and Russia jointly use a radar in Azerbaijan as part of an anti-missile shield that would protect all of Europe.

... Quote:
We can do this automatically, and hence the whole system which is being built as a result will cover not only part of Europe but the entire Europe without an exception.

This would also ... allow us not to redirect our rockets (to targets in Europe) and, on the contrary, allow us to create conditions for joint work
Putin said.

In his comments to reporters, Bush did not directly mention Putin's radar plan, which a White House aide said was new.

"He made some interesting suggestions," Bush said.

A Kremlin spokesman explained Putin's suggestion of using a Russian-operated radar in Azerbaijan would remove any need for a US radar in the Czech Republic or anywhere in eastern Europe.

But it was unclear if Bush would ever consider the idea of dropping the Czech radar, a plan he vehemently defends.

Russia's RIA-Novosti news agency quoted Azeri Deputy Foreign Minister Araz Azimov as saying Azerbaijan was ready for formal talks on the joint use of the Qabala radar.

A senior Kremlin aide said he was certain the missile shield plan could be turned into a joint US-Russian project.

Yevgeny Volk, head of the Moscow office of the Heritage Foundation, a US think tank, told Reuters Putin's proposal was a ruse designed to stop the United States basing elements of its anti-missile defence systems in eastern Europe.

"It looks like an attempt to divert discussion into a side street and make proposals that will hardly be acceptable to the United States."

By netchicken: posted on 9-6-2007


A undated file picture of the control room of the Gabala radar station in Azerbaijan. Russian President Vladimir Putin proposed during the G8 Summit on 07 June 2007 to use the Gabala radar station together with the United States to prevent potential missile strikes from the southern direction.

The Azerbaijan government confirmed 08 June 2007 its willingness to negotiate with Russia and the United States on the joint operation of a radar station in the country, Russian news agency Interfax reported Friday. It would make sense for all three states involved to sit down at the negotiation table,

A few more pics here

By netchicken: posted on 9-6-2007

Someone notes that
... Quote:
It is operational since 1985 and is used for detecting missle launches from southern hemishere. It covers territories of Iran, China, Turkey, Pakistan, India, Iraq, Australia, large portion of Africa.

I am pretty sure with several serious upgrades this site can become something US is looking for, if, in fact, their intentions are not directed against Russia. We'll see how American administration reacts to this proposal.


As you can see its right above Iran
By netchicken: posted on 9-6-2007

I seriously doubt that it can cover China and India and Pakistan from Azerbaijan. The mountain ranges of the Hindu Kush and the Himalayas make the terrain slop upwards from central Asia towards Pakistan and till through China. Not to mention the distance. I would estimate that this at most could cover IRan, the entire Persian Gulf, IRaq and a large part of the Arabian sub-continent.

Putin's rhetoric has changed incredibly from the last few days, where he was at one point saying that Russia would target European cities and then suddenly went to helping America build the missile shield.
By IAF: posted on 9-6-2007

Putin might be right afterall

Here is an interesting article on the background to the Nuclear missile shiled, and it does seem that Putin has a valid point to make. Putin is admitidly an unlovely person to agree with. But that doesn't mean he is illogical or crazy, he seems to be coming from realisitic arguments.

... Quote:
By means of a US first strike about 99%+ of Russian nuclear forces would be taken out. Namely, the United States Government believes that with the deployment of a facially successful first strike capability, they can move beyond deterrence and into "compellence."…

This has been analyzed ad nauseam in the professional literature. But especially by one of Harvard's premier warmongers in chief, Thomas Schelling --winner of the Nobel Prize in Economics granted by the Bank of Sweden-- who developed the term "compellence" and distinguished it from "deterrence." …

The USG is breaking out of a "deterrence" posture and moving into a "compellence" posture. (Global Research 6-6-07)

That’s right. The real goal is to force Moscow to conform to Washington’s “diktats” or face the prospect of “first-strike” annihilation.

That’s why Putin has expressed growing concern over the administration’s dropping out of the ABM Treaty and the development of a new regime of low yield, bunker-busting nuclear weapons.

The “hawks” who surround Bush have abandoned the “deterrence” policy of the past, and now believe that a nuclear war can be “won” by the United States. This is madness and it needs to be taken seriously.

As Putin said:
... Quote:
We have removed all of our heavy weapons from the European part of Russia and put them behind the Urals” and “reduced our Armed Forces by 300,000.

We have taken several other steps required by the Adapted Conventional Armed Forces Treaty in Europe (ACAF).

But what have we seen in response? Eastern Europe is receiving new weapons, two new military bases are being set up in Romania and in Bulgaria, and there are two new missile launch areas -- a radar in Czech republic and missile systems in Poland.

And we are asking ourselves the question: what is going on? Russia is disarming unilaterally. But if we disarm unilaterally then we would like to see our partners be willing to do the same thing in Europe.

On the contrary, Europe is being pumped full of new weapons systems. And of course we cannot help but be concerned.

Much more on the site, too much to quote here..

By netchicken: posted on 16-6-2007

The whole issue would be trust.

where Bush has gone wrong all these years is making it sound like Putin is a swell and wonderful guy. He's not.
Iran and The Sovi...I mean the Russians are in cahoots. Putting pieces of a missile shield designed to protect against Russia's frind IN Russia would be mere foolishness.
But, should we expect any other behavior?
By Thomas_Crowne: posted on 16-6-2007

Its only natural that Putin would look out for his country and not doing so would make him weak, which he is not. Actually, Putin could take on mano-e mano any Congressman and Senator and the President and his lackeys on his own. Plus he was a STASI agent( EAst German Secret Service - They made the KGB look like amateurs! ). Compare that to the upstart and armchair lawyers and snake oil merchants that make up the US Congress and Senate. In short he is one clever and dangerous man. But I trust he will do is best for Russia, as he is very patriotic. And it is in Russia's interest to move from weapons to industry, services etc because that oil money will only last for so long and weapons will only get you so much money.

As for this whole generation of Republican "utopians" they will be gone for a long time to come. If anything Bush has made sure that Democrats run America for at least the next 15 years, come 2008 (unless they rig it so badly, that the apartheid looked fair! ). Despite the madness of Bush, I do beleive that he has learnt a thing or two about how the world works.
By IAF: posted on 17-6-2007

Blah-blah....what does all that have to do with the situation?

He'll do what is best with Russia? He is patriotic? Is this what you would have said about Hitler?

Russia is not under an American threat, you know that and he even knows that. This being the clear and obvious case, why is it that you think he is acting on behalf of the best interests of the Russian people?

Also, you have determined that if the Republicans win it will only be because the elections were rigged?

Who is your political science porfessor up there at Columbia U, Bob Beckle? Sheesh! :P
By Thomas_Crowne: posted on 17-6-2007

Well yes, even Hitler was a staunch patriot and a nationalist. I would say he did what was best for Germany in his mind. But Putin is no Hitler so the comparison doesnt stand.

We may beleive that to be true but the important thing is that the Russians beleive it. Suppose the Russians start building some military installation in Venezuela wouldnt that give rise to concern in DC ? Its the same with Eastern Europe. IF the US starts arming Eastern Europeans and tries to push NATO through to former Soviet states they will only see it as a threat towards them. Besides Russia has not been allowed to become part of Nato or the EU why would they beleive us ?

Do you really think that the majority of American people actually voted Bush ? Hell I'm sure even Bush and Cheney down the line will come out with a book on how they rigged the elections.
By IAF: posted on 17-6-2007

Here we go, you believe (i before e, by the way) the elections were rigged.

Anyway, it might be hard to believe but there are some people who actually ARE bad guys. That is to say, you might want Putin to simply be wanting to defend his own nation but you are failing to remember a couple things. Russia used to be the Soviet Union, and Putin was an important cog in the KGB wheel of that want-to-be empire. We, on the other hand, do not make it a practice to take over nations by force. On the other hand, as there is no reason to fear unprovoked attack by the U.S., there is no reason to build a defense shield in Argentina, is there? Considering the old attitude is showing signs of re-emerging in Russia, on the other hand, there is very good reason to doubt their intent.
By Thomas_Crowne: posted on 18-6-2007

People seem to be ignoring something obvious here: This missile shield is mainly being placed in Eastern Europe (i.e. former Soviet Bloc Countries), with the blessing and even urging of Eastern European governments. Why? One might say, for the money. But since many Eastern European countries have joined the EU, they already have steady flows of cash. Its more than money.

Its the fact that Eastern Europe fears and distrusts Russia quite fervently. And with good reason. If anyone knows first hand Russian ruling tactics and what it is like to live under the boot of a Soviet Empire, it is those in eastern Europe. They learned that the Russians couldnot be trusted. Perhaps we should listen to them.

Russia has been playing aggressive bully with its gas and oil supplies to western Europe, turning off the taps of gas and energy to Europe to remind them who really weilds the power in the region. The Russians have not changed their mentality much. They still hold on to the old cold war mentality. The only reason they have seemed benign for the past 2 decades is because they lost the power to enforce it, and with it, lost their empire.

So if we are putting missile shields in eastern Europe, so what? I really doubt it has anything to do with Iran, either. Thats fine by me, because Russia is not a dead animal, and is still a potential threat.
By Twilight_Rogue: posted on 25-7-2007

Putin calls Bush\'s bluff over the anti missile system - is Putin right? | [Login ]
Powered by XMB
Privacy Policy