[Jarem]

Scape Scape:

This is the Cuban Missile crisis in reverse.

Eh? I don't see much in common about deploying nuclear missiles(Attack weapon) and anti-missiles(Defense Weapon), beside that both of them are rockets.

Russia threatened about pointing nukes on Polish teritory many months ago - It's nothing new. Besides, changing targets of nuclear missiles is nothing big, they are programed just before firing, so all this big talk of russian generals is just rubbish.

The real danger is Europe dependency on russian oil and gas. Russia can talk all they can how realiable partner they are, but it's pure lie:
- When Lithuania sold Mažeikiai refinery to PKN Orlen rather then to Russians, the vice-leader of the Russian Duma, Konstantin Kosachov had said that "instability will continue to plague the refinery until the Lithuanians finally realize which partners one should choose".
Few hours later big fire consumes large part of refinery.
But both Orlen and Lithuanian authorities announce that cooperation will go on.
Day or two passed, and Russian firm delivering oil to refinery proclaims it has to close down oil pipeline to Lithuania, "for minor technical checkings". To this day, pipeline is still closed, and oil has to be delivered to Mažeikiai by tankers.

Example with Mažeikiai refinery is just one of many in recent years.

[Scape]

Jarem Jarem:

Eh? I don't see much in common about deploying nuclear missiles(Attack weapon) and anti-missiles(Defense Weapon), beside that both of them are rockets.

Both are weapons and the issue at hand is weapon proliferation. The definitions of if they are defensive or offensive after that are irrelevant as an offensive nuclear weapon can be defensive under the M.A.D doctrine just as much as a MD network can be used to knock out intelligence gathering military communication satellites in order to isolate and confuse the enemy in a 1st strike.

Militarism, be the reasons/excuses for it be defensive or offensive, is an escalation. As far as Russia was concerned it was a last straw that many have the consequence of an ever widening conflict.

[saturn_656]

Scape Scape:

Jarem Jarem:

Militarism, be the reasons/excuses for it be defensive or offensive, is an escalation. As far as Russia was concerned it was a last straw that many have the consequence of an ever widening conflict.

A conflict that Russia doesn't have a hope in hell of winning if it starts.

[Jarem]

Scape Scape:

Militarism, be the reasons/excuses for it be defensive or offensive, is an escalation. As far as Russia was concerned it was a last straw that many have the consequence of an ever widening conflict.

Sure, but tell me, who is the most militaristic nation in Eastern Europe? Who organize large military parades, and restored nuclear bomber flights last year?
Ooops! It's Russia! Surprise?!

Did any russian neighbour threatened Russia that it will use military force/severed diplomatic links/imposed economic sanctions/attacked in some other way in last 17 years?
And Russia did that to her neighbours. Many times.

Russians like to talk with West countries about mutual respect and cooperation. But when something is happening, suddenly they change to "it's not your business" mode.

[Scape]

Russia has coffers full thanks to the cost of oil going through the roof. So they have restored much of their military and modernized it. So no that is no surpirse. You might also notice that China seems to be floating a modern navy as well.

[Jarem]

So why didn't they used this cash for structural changes, fighting organized crime, alcoholism, drugs, poverty, etc. etc. ?

It amazes me, that so many people in West thinks it's natural and not worrying that Russia tries to rebuild their military potential.
Beside the fact that Russian Federation is smaller, less populated, economicaly weaker and more divided than USSR, soviet Red Army was developed with one purpose: to deliver revolution on bayonets. Or tanks. Or nuclear warheads. And still, some people say not to worry, when russian leaders are going back to soviet-like rhetoric, and spend more and more on military hardware. And software, as cybernetic attack on Estonia showed.

[Scape]

Jarem Jarem:

So why didn't they used this cash for structural changes, fighting organized crime, alcoholism, drugs, poverty, etc. etc. ?

You should ask the oligarchs that question. The ones still alive that is. Simple survival dictates what doctrines Russia follows, it is a harsh land with even harsher peoples.

Jarem Jarem:

Beside the fact that Russian Federation is smaller, less populated, economicaly weaker and more divided than USSR, soviet Red Army was developed with one purpose: to deliver revolution on bayonets. Or tanks. Or nuclear warheads. And still, some people say not to worry, when russian leaders are going back to soviet-like rhetoric, and spend more and more on military hardware. And software, as cybernetic attack on Estonia showed.

Russia is not the same as the USSR. Militarism was the engine that drove the USSR but under the hood of the new Russian economy is an energy giant. In other words if you understand what makes an oil baron want to drink your milkshake you will be one step closer to understanding Putin's Russia. War is not good for the economy but threatening to bypass Russia's share in the energy market completely left them with no option but to roll tanks. They had warned NATO and the EU for years now that they will defend their interests, and it was foolish of the west to think this was an idle bluff from a has been superpower. The high cost of oil has rejuvenated the Russian economy and Putin has all but excommunicated or controls the oligarchs who had a stranglehold on all of Russia under, and just after that drunk Yeltsin.



watch the rest here

[Jarem]

Scape Scape:

Jarem Jarem:

So why didn't they used this cash for structural changes, fighting organized crime, alcoholism, drugs, poverty, etc. etc. ?

You should ask the oligarchs that question. The ones still alive that is. Simple survival dictates what doctrines Russia follows, it is a harsh land with even harsher peoples.

"It's harsh land with even harsher peoples"?! And what, everybody else in the world should nod and do what Russia demands, becouse they are "harsh"?
Besides, it's sooo stereotypical western view of Russia and Eastern Europe.
Do you also believe that we have 3 meters of snow in the winter, bears walking on city streets, and everybody are always completely drunk? God...

You mentioned that Russia acts when they are worried about their "share in the energy market". You make it sound like it is absolutely natural to threaten with force almost every neighbour, like Russia does.
Did you ever had your gas supply cut of in the middle of harsh winter? Most of Eastern European countries had. You may call it "normal russian politics", but we don't see much "normal" in it. For Eastern Europe(And Western also) it's "natural" to look for others sources of energy and security. Russians are annoyed? Well, they brought it to this point themselves.

[Scape]

I don't get mad at hurricanes. So why should I be upset at a counties national interests? Canada has never invaded another country but we have not been a major superpower either. I would like to think we wouldn't use force but that's a hypothetical that can best be answered by the wisdom that power corrupts.

There is nothing stopping North Korea from invading south Korea, besides the use of force. There is nothing stopping China from retaking Taiwan, besides the use of force. There is nothing stopping Syria claiming the Golan heights, besides the use of force and was nothing protecting Iraq from the US when force was used unilaterally against them. So it very much is 'absolutely natural' to threaten with force around the world. Force has been applied vs Russian interests in the fact that NATO has placed troops and now MD in Eastern Europe, NATO membership in now seriously being pursued by nations who boarder Russia. Imagine if Mexico was to join a military alliance with Russia, do you really think the US would sit behind their boarders? A cornered animal is dangerous and a wounded one doubly so, the actions taken thus far to date would have removed a prime revenue source for the Russians and placed a large military force that is historically at odds with the Russians on their doorstep.

The expectation that Russia would fold or at least respond incompetently was not without basis, a Russian General was wounded when they simply relied on brute force and no air cover to attack the Georgians. Also, when the Georgian army was defeated most of their heavy equipment was allowed to withdraw (minus aircraft which they lost the bulk of) creating a Russian Dunkirk. This shows that the Russians are still not fully up to their potential. However, the fact that they were able to muster that many that fast shows that Russia was not toying with idle threats, they are quite willing to back up their words with action and that is something that has been taken for granted for too long. Status quo thinking will get you killed. Underestimating the Russians is a dangerous error and one the Georgians paid a stiff price for. Now we have warships in the black sea and Turkey is now in the crossfire.

$1:

Russia had warned Turkey that it would be held responsible if the U.S. ships currently in the Black Sea stayed beyond the 21 days allowed under the Montreux Convention and said the entrance of NATO warships to the Black Sea was a serious threat to its security.

[saturn_656]

$1:

Russia had warned Turkey that it would be held responsible if the U.S. ships currently in the Black Sea stayed beyond the 21 days allowed under the Montreux Convention and said the entrance of NATO warships to the Black Sea was a serious threat to its security.

The Montreux convention? Please... Russia doesn't even respect it why should NATO (who has three members who border the sea).

Here is a question. Do you know why all Russian aircraft carriers are NEVER called aircraft carriers? HINT: It's all do with Black Sea and the Montreux convention.

Moskva class - "aviation cruiser"


Kiev Class - "heavy aircraft carrying cruisers"


Kuznetsov class - "heavy aircraft-carrying cruiser"


If Russia is willing to shit on the agreement why should anyone else respect it?

[Scape]

Montreux convention was the UK's way to appease the Turks so they didn't side with Hitler. Since that is not a current concern I do not see how this is something that can really hold any weight. Russia insisting all parties follow the convention is a way to keep out anyone but Turkey to the Black sea. It's a bluff that can be easily called.

[Toro]

Poland's not even in the Caribbean.

Sheesh!

[Scape]

Russia threatens to supply Iran with top new missile system as 'cold war' escalates

$1:

US intelligence fears the Kremlin will supply the sophisticated S-300 system to Tehran if Washington pushes through Nato membership for its pro-Western neighbours Georgia and Ukraine.

The proposed deal is causing huge alarm in the US and Israel as the S-300 can track 100 targets at once and fire on planes up to 75 miles away.

"The message from Moscow is very clear," said George Friedman, director of Stratfor, a leading US private intelligence agency. "They are saying if you don't stop meddling in our sphere of influence, this is what we are going to do.

"Back Georgia and Ukraine for Nato membership and you'll see the S-300 to Iran. It is a very powerful bargaining chip and a major deterrent to US actions in the region. Moscow is playing very strategically on America's obsession with Iran."

[DerbyX]

Don't you ever sleep or go out drinking?

Are you actually Scape-bot?

[Tman1]

Scape is the internet AI. He refutes anybody and anything political with cybernetic zeal.

Skynet, is that you?