6 ms·

A bit of history in relation to the proposed anti-ballistic defense system in Europe. In 2002, the US unilaterally withdrew from the ABM treaty with Russia. Th

by znowi 13y ago

A bit of history in relation to the proposed anti-ballistic defense system in Europe. In 2002, the US unilaterally withdrew from the ABM treaty with Russia. The treaty had been active since the 70s and sought to decrease the amount of those very systems installed. In the same year, no longer bound by the treaty, the US started to look into expansion of its defense arsenal in Europe, which eventually led them to Poland. It is no surprise then that Russia saw it as an unfriendly gesture at best. Any independent country would, when all of a sudden someone dumps the anti-ballistic treaty and then decides to build a defensive shield along your borders. The EU has traditionally been used as a playground to advance the US agenda. The proposed defense system is no exception. Gladly, it did not come to fruition. Otherwise, we'd seen a very different Europe now. Given our attachment to history, Russia is still often seen as this "cold war" aggressor out to get you. But if the past decade is of any lesson, I think we have a new candidate on this role.

dhimes 13y ago
Totally agree. We have (essentially) all of the military might, start putting up defense shield, then invade the wrong country, against the better intelligence of the Russians and some Europeans. I also sympathize a bit with the Russians for wanting their own checks and balances against the US, as our attitude was clearly "we're going to do whatever we want and don't really care what you think."
- mpyne 13y ago
  Perhaps surprisingly, but I also agree with the situation from Russia's perspective. There's an argument to be made about ABM against small-state actors like Iran and NK, but any system that becomes a serious deterrent to ballistic missiles puts an incredible upheaval in our "balance of power" and potentially leads to an arms race, increase in conflict, proxy wars, etc. Not good news. I don't agree that Russia should have a say in when NATO would be able to operate such a system, but a notification requirement would be fine, if not actually allowing a Russian liaison to be stationed with the operations center controlling such a system.
Arwill 13y ago
>Any independent country would, when all of a sudden someone dumps the anti-ballistic treaty and then decides to build a defensive shield along your borders. Look at this from Poland's side. Not building the defensive shield means that Russia has still the right to pressure the country with missiles. Russia wouldn't need to object the defense shield if they didn't want that. Pressuring your neighbors with weapons is still cold war tactics. In this case Russia was clearly the bad guy. Russia is also the bad guy when it manipulates the energy prices for Europe, but it seems that wasn't enough for them.
- arethuza 13y ago
  Would the missile defence system that was planned for Poland really have protected Poland from attack from Russia? They are pretty close so cruise missiles and/or aircraft would presumably be preferable to use rather than ballistic missiles.
  - rdtsc 13y ago
    The opposite is true. Poland would have been wiped out as the first order of business if anything was about to start. I suspect them being a prime target might have given them some thought.
    - arethuza 13y ago
      The Russians apparently announced they would have deployed Iskander theatre missiles in the Kaliningrad Oblast to target any US missile defence base in Poland: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9K720_Iskander http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9K720_Iskander http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_missile_defense_complex_in_Poland http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_missile_defense_complex_in_P...
  - akiselev 13y ago
    Remember when Russia invaded Georgia in the last decade? Yeah, nothing NATO can do or install in Poland would help them in that situation.
- 13y ago
rdtsc 13y ago
Even more background. US decided to be sneaky and said it was to protect against nuclear missiles from Iran and North Korea and other rogue terrorist states. That was to reply to Russia' public objections and accusation of restarting the nuclear arms race. That was a PR stunt most of all, so Russia replied in like, they offered a an already existing Russian base to be upgraded and used jointly. It would have been even closer to Iran and North Korea. It would have protected Russia and Western Europe from "terrorist rogue states". US kind of got caught with its pants down ... "oh oh, we can't and ... stuff". Russia then said ok, put missiles in Poland we'll just put our theater tactical nuclear missiles (Iskander) in Kaliningrad and at first whiff of danger destroy all of Poland. US backed down and now I think they are courting Romania or the Czech Republic to install systems there. (Presumably out of range of Iskander missiles)
jacoblyles 13y ago
To be fair, most of Eastern Europe was under the Soviet boot in my lifetime, and I'm only 30. I'm sure Eastern European residents are happy that their American allies are not letting their guard down re:Russia. Just because one side of a conflict starts to do something bad does not make the other side the good guys!

by znowi 13y ago

dhimes 13y ago

Totally agree. We have (essentially) all of the military might, start putting up defense shield, then invade the wrong country, against the better intelligence of the Russians and some Europeans. I also sympathize a bit with the Russians for wanting their own checks and balances against the US, as our attitude was clearly "we're going to do whatever we want and don't really care what you think."

mpyne 13y ago
Perhaps surprisingly, but I also agree with the situation from Russia's perspective. There's an argument to be made about ABM against small-state actors like Iran and NK, but any system that becomes a serious deterrent to ballistic missiles puts an incredible upheaval in our "balance of power" and potentially leads to an arms race, increase in conflict, proxy wars, etc. Not good news. I don't agree that Russia should have a say in when NATO would be able to operate such a system, but a notification requirement would be fine, if not actually allowing a Russian liaison to be stationed with the operations center controlling such a system.

Arwill 13y ago

>Any independent country would, when all of a sudden someone dumps the anti-ballistic treaty and then decides to build a defensive shield along your borders. Look at this from Poland's side. Not building the defensive shield means that Russia has still the right to pressure the country with missiles. Russia wouldn't need to object the defense shield if they didn't want that. Pressuring your neighbors with weapons is still cold war tactics. In this case Russia was clearly the bad guy. Russia is also the bad guy when it manipulates the energy prices for Europe, but it seems that wasn't enough for them.

arethuza 13y ago
Would the missile defence system that was planned for Poland really have protected Poland from attack from Russia? They are pretty close so cruise missiles and/or aircraft would presumably be preferable to use rather than ballistic missiles.
- rdtsc 13y ago
  The opposite is true. Poland would have been wiped out as the first order of business if anything was about to start. I suspect them being a prime target might have given them some thought.
  - arethuza 13y ago
    The Russians apparently announced they would have deployed Iskander theatre missiles in the Kaliningrad Oblast to target any US missile defence base in Poland: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9K720_Iskander http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9K720_Iskander http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_missile_defense_complex_in_Poland http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_missile_defense_complex_in_P...
- akiselev 13y ago
  Remember when Russia invaded Georgia in the last decade? Yeah, nothing NATO can do or install in Poland would help them in that situation.
13y ago

rdtsc 13y ago

Even more background. US decided to be sneaky and said it was to protect against nuclear missiles from Iran and North Korea and other rogue terrorist states. That was to reply to Russia' public objections and accusation of restarting the nuclear arms race. That was a PR stunt most of all, so Russia replied in like, they offered a an already existing Russian base to be upgraded and used jointly. It would have been even closer to Iran and North Korea. It would have protected Russia and Western Europe from "terrorist rogue states". US kind of got caught with its pants down ... "oh oh, we can't and ... stuff". Russia then said ok, put missiles in Poland we'll just put our theater tactical nuclear missiles (Iskander) in Kaliningrad and at first whiff of danger destroy all of Poland. US backed down and now I think they are courting Romania or the Czech Republic to install systems there. (Presumably out of range of Iskander missiles)

jacoblyles 13y ago

To be fair, most of Eastern Europe was under the Soviet boot in my lifetime, and I'm only 30. I'm sure Eastern European residents are happy that their American allies are not letting their guard down re:Russia. Just because one side of a conflict starts to do something bad does not make the other side the good guys!