[KevO]

Russia's foreign ministry has said it will be forced to react with military means if a US-Czech agreement over a missile defence shield is ratified. The statement comes hours after the US signed an initial deal to base part of Washington's controversial missile defence system in the Czech Republic. It said Russia would respond "not with diplomatic, but with military-technical methods" if the system was deployed.

Moscow says siting the system near its borders could weaken its own defence. It has previously threatened to aim its own missiles at any eventual base in Poland or the Czech Republic.

Tracking system: The deal signed by US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice in Prague on Tuesday allows a tracking radar base to be set up on Czech territory. The plans remain unpopular in the Czech Republic and the US has also failed to reach agreement with Poland on placing other parts of the system there. The missile defence system would include the tracking radar system in the Czech Republic and 10 interceptor missiles in Poland. The US wants the sites to be in operation by about 2012.

BBC news

[KevO]

now main header at Drudge: link

[bl00k]

"Aim their missiles at Czech Republic"???
Are they physically gonna aim the missiles eastward? They gonna put the crosshairs of the missiles pointed east? Come on, why do these people make fools of themselves all the time... because they are fools perhaps.

[mos6507]

We should just call their bluff. I don't think it's worth it for them to go to war over something this stupid.

[dorlomin]

We should just call their bluff. I don't think it's worth it for them to go to war over something this stupid.

The worry is that this kind of thinking is what causes wars. States take actions that they think the other side will not go to war over, they try to grab bits of influence here or better trading rights there and someone feels too hemmed in and over reacts: before you know it its back the August 1914.
A classic example of this would be Saddam who figured no one really cared about Kuwait enough to take the risk.

This on its own will definently not cause a war, but it rachets tension and undermines the Russian strategic safety margins. There counters may trigger a series of small escalations, things like Russia redeploying IRBMs specificaly to target these sites and the US retaliating in some other fashion. It also very seriously hurts confidence in western Europe who will feel that the US is shaping up to confront Russia with minimal risks to itself.
I really don't think these interceptor sites are worth the costs in terms of diplomacy that they are causing.

[KevO]

what is actually going on?

The results of recent Iranian missile tests prove that US plans for a defence shield in Europe are unnecessary, says Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov.

He said the tests confirmed Tehran had missiles with a limited range of up to 2,000km (1,240 miles).

The US says it wants shield sites in Poland and the Czech Republic to defend US troops and allies from rogue states.

Following widespread condemnation over the tests, Iran says it is open to talks about its nuclear programme.

The state news agency said the chief Iranian negotiator, Saeed Jalili, would meet the European Union envoy Javier Solana on 19 July in Geneva - although this has not yet been confirmed by Mr Solana's office.

See footage of Iran's missile tests

The BBC Tehran correspondent Jon Leyne says that although Iran seems willing to talk, it is unclear whether it is willing to give any ground.

Iran denies Western assertions that it is developing nuclear weapons and insists its nuclear programme is intended for peaceful purposes.

Some analysts saw this week's missile tests as an attempt by hardliners to discourage compromise.

BBC Main Header

[EnergyUnlimited]

I think, it is more than likely that American negotiations in Poland are going to fail, so now we can hear more of such news.

[jlw61]

No offense to our EU bretheren, but if they want a missile sheild, they can bloody well build their own. I would be quite happy, for many reasons, if we just packed up our boys and girls in green fatigues and brought them and all of our toys back home.

Tomorrow would not be too soon.

Then, we simply explain to the entire world that any more terrorist or violent acts against our people (including our Navy, as it visits friendly ports), will be met with "any overwhelming and very final option deemed appropriate, up to, and including the creation of a new glass lined lake".

Yeah, I'm feeling snarky today.

[KevO]

July 15 (Bloomberg) -- German Economy Minister Michael Glos pressed Russian government ministers about a drop in oil shipments after the Czech government agreed to participate in a planned U.S. anti-missile shield.

``I made it clear that in our view political misconduct as perceived by the Russians shouldn't be answered with economic pinpricks,'' Glos told reporters in Moscow today in response to a question about the Czech supply cut. ``Those aren't the standards we value in the European Union.''

Russia decreased oil deliveries to the Czech Republic last week, raising concern the supply cut was related to the Czech government's signing on July 8 of an agreement to host a radar station for the U.S. missile-defense system. Russian officials said the reasons for the drop were commercial.

While Glos said it ``appears'' the decline was ``a normal business operation,'' he said he was bringing it up in talks today with his counterpart Elvira Nabiullina and Industry Minister Viktor Khristenko. Glos met the new Russian energy minister, Sergei Shmatko, yesterday.

Bloomberg

[Cashmere]

``I made it clear that in our view political misconduct as perceived by the Russians shouldn't be answered with economic pinpricks,'' Glos told reporters in Moscow today in response to a question about the Czech supply cut. ``Those aren't the standards we value in the European Union.''

Expletive deleted. in the EU are just as hypocritical as those in the U.S.. You sign an agreement to set up a missile station on their border with the U.S. in control, and you are then upset when they won't sell you oil?

[Plantagenet]

Whats with those EU people complaining to Russia? If they want to buy oil and natural gas from Russia, then of course they have to do what Russia tells them to do, or Russia will punish them.

How much clearer can it be?

[Bman4k1]

"You mean Czechoslovakia?"
McSame

[DefiledEngine]

``Those aren't the standards we value in the European Union.''

Haha, I think we all know where the ruskies think he can put his European Union values. Or shove them, rather.

[KevO]

"You mean Czechoslovakia?"
McSame

No such place. There is Slovakia and there is the Czech Republic.

Czechoslovakia was a sovereign state in Central Europe that existed from October 1918 until 1992. On January 1, 1993, Czechoslovakia peacefully split into the Czech Republic and Slovakia.

[Sixstrings]

Russia Threatens Pre-Emptive Strike On NATO Missile Defense Shields

MOSCOW -- Russia's top military officer has threatened to carry out a pre-emptive strike on U.S.-led NATO missile defense facilities in Eastern Europe if Washington goes ahead with its controversial plan to build a missile shield.

President Dmitry Medvedev said last year that Russia will retaliate militarily if it does not reach an agreement with the United States and NATO on the missile defense system.

Chief of General Staff Nikolai Makarov went even further Thursday. "A decision to use destructive force pre-emptively will be taken if the situation worsens," he said at an international conference attended by senior U.S. and NATO officials.

Russian Defense Minister Anatoly Serdyukov also warned on Thursday that talks between Moscow and Washington on the topic are "close to a dead end."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/03/russia-missile-defense-pre-emptive-strike_n_1473593.html

Maybe there's a translation problem here.. "A decision to use destructive force pre-emptively will be taken" can mean two things, either that they have decided already and that's the decision "that will be taken" or he's saying at that point, if NATO continues the missile shield, they will decide IF to strike.

Anyhow.. the Russians got us by the cajones..

Just as I was knocking Mitt Romney for Cold War talk (though maybe it's his fault, did he spook them), now Russians threaten PRE-EMPTIVE STRIKE. Nooooooo Vlad you can't do that. You can't say those words "pre-emptive strike." That is incredibly belligerent and irresponsible.

Russia is threatening attack on NATO, that is what they are saying.

My recommended course of action: fine, take the missiles out. We have no choice, the missiles aren't worth war. BUT.. the US should do a conventional buildup instead. Bases alone aren't a threat, but they have a point with the missiles. If the Russians don't like the new conventional forces we go with instead of missiles, then too bad it's on -- another Cold War put them on the sh*t list -- oppose Russia on EVERYTHING, trade issues, diplomacy, the whole 9 yards.

The whole thing is ludicrous. WE share a space station for pete's sake. What are they going to do, launch an attack on NATO then our astronauts are marooned in space? Would our guys up there be detained within the space station? They're scientists they're not going to fight each other but the next Soyuz launch would mean arrest and detainment after they take our astronauts back to Russia. Obviously with a war on we'd have bigger problems to deal with down here on Earth.

A Russian strike on NATO means war with Russia. We can only hope both sides can somehow agree to keep it conventional.

(p.s. one caveat with my advice.. for some reason this missile shield is very important to NATO.. if there is reason to be worried that Russia doesn't have control over its nukes, or is losing control or could lose control, then that's a tough call -- we have to defend ourselves despite Russian threat of pre-emptive strikes.. in a perfect world it would sure be nice if NATO and Russia could cooperate to ensure both sides feel safe from an errant nuke launch.. a full scale Russian nuclear strike would mean the permanent end of our nation, and most of our lives the folks on this forum, this has always been the single greatest threat the US has ever had -- nuke exchange with Russia.)

[JohnRM]

This threat, more than likely, does not have any teeth. Russia's future is tied to Europe for a multitude of reasons. Since the days of Peter the Great, the Russians have wanted the world to see them as European, even through the Communist period. The bottom line is that without Europe and the West, Russia is sunk. They are an important source of energy, true, but they are as dependent on the customer for revenue as the customer is on the imported energy. Russsia can export very little of what it sells to Europe to China, instead, so there is little fear there.

Now, in the event of war, we're still at status quo circa 1989. It is mutually-assured destruction. Save nuclear war, Russia is uttlerly incapable of sustaining a conventional war. They are, more or less, in the same place they were in World War I. They outnumber us, but our troops and equipment are vastly superior. The 54,000 tanks they have are outdated, lacking upkeep, and trained and motivated troops to use them. They're targets, as Tom Clancy likes to say.

So, move along. Nothing to see here.

[JohnRM]

Also, I rather suspect that the story was planted to take heat off of President Obama after he was caught discussing the issue with Medvedev, over the microphone, talking about making a trade after the election. Its supposed to show that the US, and by extension, President Obama, is being tough with the Russians. No worries.

[Sixstrings]

This threat, more than likely, does not have any teeth. Russia's future is tied to Europe for a multitude of reasons.

Yeah, I know, so it's kind of scary they have a loose cannon general mouthing off like this. Is this approved? Does the government have total control over their military? These are serious questions, it may be why we want the missile shield in the first place. Incidentally what does the shield do, does it even work, can it protect us from a Russian launch? Russia obviously is opposed to it because it suggests a winnable first strike capability but let's get real here -- the US has tight control of its nukes, the US is never going to first strike nuke Russia everybody knows that. But we don't necessarily know that Russians have control over their nukes. I hope they do. I hope it's impossible for some psychotic general over there to just launch one.

So, move along. Nothing to see here.

I don't know, man. If they have loose cannon generals / military factions not in line with the kremlin then that's worrisome. This is a doomer forum, from a doom perspective nuke exchange is a huge threat in context of collapse. Collapse of control, some general could make the wrong decision or faulty equipment detects what they think is a first strike then they go ahead and push the button.

That actually almost happened back in the 1990s with a Norwegian research missile in the arctic. The generals brought Yeltsin the nuclear football, told him protocol was to launch full strike. Thankfully, Yeltsin decided it had to be an error and we're all still here he never pushed the button.

[SeaGypsy]

6, what would be the point of your suggested alternative of building up conventional warheads (etc?) on the old war front line? It's NATO's provocation; what would Obama do if the Russians did a new deal with Cuba to parallel the 'defense shield?'? Does anyone really believe NATO is going to let outside observers observe what actually goes into the silos planned for the shield? Of course not. So why should Russians be fine about this fundamentally provocative proposal? With a freshly re-elected Putin, a bit of sabre rattling is perfectly in order.

[Sixstrings]

I should have read my own posted article.

Ok US response:

At a later news conference, Tauscher played down Makarov's comments on pre-emptive measures

"We've heard it before," she said. "We think that's off on the horizon. We think they were showing us what could happen. I think we're far from there, but we're aware of what they're saying."

Some quotes:

"Why are they calling on me, on my Russian colleagues, to reject distrust? Better look at yourselves in the mirror."

"Your 10-foot fence cannot cause me to build an 11-foot ladder," Tauscher said.

Ah, no worries:

Russia would not plan any retaliation unless the United States goes through with its plans and takes the third and final step and deploys defense elements in Poland, Antonov said Wednesday. That is estimated to happen no earlier than in 2018.

John McCain accuses Putin of being paranoid:

Meanwhile, U.S. Senator John McCain, on a visit to Lithuania, lashed out at Russia's plans in Kaliningrad.

McCain said using missile defense as an "excuse to have a military buildup in this part of the world, which is at peace, is really an egregious example of what might be even viewed as paranoia on the part of Vladimir Putin."

Ok after reading the whole article it appears the missile defense is supposed to be against Iran, Russia's point is that *eventually* it could be strong enough to be a deterrent against them.

To be fair to the Russians, this sounds reasonable:

Moscow has proposed running the missile shield jointly with NATO, but the alliance has rejected that proposal.

I'd be all for that, an international organization to shoot down any ballistic launch wherever it comes from. World would be safer. If one side launched something by mistake, you'd have both Russians and NATO running the missile shield they can shoot it down, both sides cooperating real time. But Russians probably aren't genuinely interested in that, actually removing the threat from nukes would also take away some of their political leverage on other issues.