So it begins....for Obama

[Sea Demon]

And the Russians begin their probing:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,447204,00.html

Sorry Poland. But these guys are going to eat Obama like a snack. You Europeans may not be so happy about Obama in a couple of years down the road. Best of luck to you all.

[Digital_Trucker]

Let me be preemptive here and hypothesize that this is all George Bushes fault for putting the missile defense system in Poland to begin with http://i19.photobucket.com/albums/b173/digital_trucker/Smilies/sarcasm.gif

Maybe this is the test Biden warned about:hmm:

[GlobalExplorer]

I don't get it - makes no sense. The Russians were creating the impression they were only po'd by Bush's one sided action, remember how different they were in 2001 (actually stepped back and let the coalition start the afghan war). So at least I would expect they should try a new start, but maybe they are already too firmly set on that fateful crash course with NATO.

Hopefully it's just a maneuvre, to get Obama to the negotiation table quickly, but I must say I don't like Russian politics atm.

[Buddahaid]

And the Russians begin their probing:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,447204,00.html

Sorry Poland. But these guys are going to eat Obama like a snack. You Europeans may not be so happy about Obama in a couple of years down the road. Best of luck to you all.

Sure, just like the GOP did! Sorry, that was too good of an opening to resist.

Buddahaid

[Konovalov]

Not really sure that this is such a big deal. Seems more like the same old limp posturing from Russia.

What is President Bush going to do about it?

It's pretty obvious Sea Demon that you are one of those who are not even going to give your own President a chance to prove himself. How sad that you wish to see President Elect Obama fail and along with him your own nation.

[AVGWarhawk]

This is much more interesting:

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D948VJQ00&show_article=1

[Sea Demon]

Not really sure that this is such a big deal. Seems more like the same old limp posturing from Russia.

What is President Bush going to do about it?

It's pretty obvious Sea Demon that you are one of those who are not even going to give your own President a chance to prove himself. How sad that you wish to see President Elect Obama fail and along with him your own nation.

You got it wrong. This is not good at all. This is obviously aimed at Obama. The Russians simply were not going to maneuver this far while Bush was a viable President. Bush is now on the way out, and is politically chained at this point. And the Russians know it. My hope would be that Obama would stand up to these cretins. Will he? I have serious doubts he could. He has shown nothing in him as being able to posture affirmatively against this type of hard power play. The Russians are moving missiles closer to Europe........anybody think an Obama administration can or will confront it? He will after all go to the negotiations table without any pre-conditions? Remember? Smells like an appeaser to me. Medvedev and Putin know exactly what they're up against. Obama will leave the Europeans to fend for themsleves if Russia decides to "exert their influence" over European interests. And I take no comfort in any of it from an American perspective looking in geostrategically. If it comes down to that, the Europeans may come to regret our choice this year.

[SteamWake]

Dont overlook the timing of this as well

"Massive rocket attack"

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,447144,00.html

[Konovalov]

Not really sure that this is such a big deal. Seems more like the same old limp posturing from Russia.

What is President Bush going to do about it?

It's pretty obvious Sea Demon that you are one of those who are not even going to give your own President a chance to prove himself. How sad that you wish to see President Elect Obama fail and along with him your own nation.

You got it wrong. This is not good at all. This is obviously aimed at Obama. The Russians simply were not going to maneuver this far while Bush was a viable President. Bush is now on the way out, and is politically chained at this point. And the Russians know it. My hope would be that Obama would stand up to these cretins. Will he? I have serious doubts he could. He has shown nothing in him as being able to posture affirmatively against this type of hard power play. The Russians are moving missiles closer to Europe........anybody think an Obama administration can or will confront it? He will after all go to the negotiations table without any pre-conditions? Remember? Smells like an appeaser to me. Medvedev and Putin know exactly what they're up against. Obama will leave the Europeans to fend for themsleves if Russia decides to "exert their influence" over European interests. And I take no comfort in any of it from an American perspective looking in geostrategically. If it comes down to that, the Europeans may come to regret our choice this year.
Yeah, and perhaps you have it wrong. How about you just wait and see how this plays out after Obama becomes President? Then judge him based on his record and actions as President. I see nothing different from your train of thought to those on the far left who slammed President Bush before he even took office. Give the guy a darn chance.

[AVGWarhawk]

Let just see if Obama has a spine of steel that Biden said he has. As I watched Obama over the past 18 months, I noticed a grit to him in some instances. I do not think he will back down or in short, be a wuss. Althought there is talk of reducing military spending by the idiot Barney Frank, now is not the time or the place. Obama will learn very quickly how to use the military. Hopefully, Joe the Gaffer Biden will stay out of his way.

[GlobalExplorer]

The Russians are moving missiles closer to Europe........anybody think an Obama administration can or will confront it?

Why not?

And what do you think these missiles are meant for, to start WWIII? They are meant as demonstration of a superpower, not really as a threat. It's just a bet for the political bargain, the Russians are in the game again, and they want more respect. Who gives a **** about the missile shield in Poland anyway? The real problem is Georgia + Ukraine in the NATO, and Russias future access to the Black Sea. Think Mexico and Panama and Venezuela joining the Warsaw pact, or what actually happened in Cuba, and you should understand much better why the Russians do what they do.

I think if USA and NATO act with more care, not as much in the cold war, but a little bit like that, everything will be in balance again.

[Skybird]

They said already months ago, after Poland's hostile hysteria over the Georgian launch of war, which made them to hush under the american umbrella, that Russia sees the American plans as a provocation and a threat to it's own security, and thus that they would not let this one go by without reacting to it, and that they would react to the missiles in Poland by targetting Poland again with their own missiles - and that's what they do now.

What a great surprise that now they do what they have announced in advance months ago!

I'm sure they also take measures to take out the sensor station in the Czech Republic. Which just follows military logic.

And Obama - I'm sure he has far more urgent and important issues on his list when he has taken over the office than just some Russian missiles on Kaliningrad. Russia is full of missiles, so to speak.

[Thomen]

Dont overlook the timing of this as well

"Massive rocket attack"

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,447144,00.html
You gotta love FauxNews. Israel broke the cease fire and killed 6 Hamas militants in the Gaza strip, Hamas replied with rocket launches. These are the facts, and that's FauxNews headline :
'Massive' Cross-Border Rocket Barrage Fired From Gaza Strip by Palestinian Militants


no word about the ceasefire and who broke it in the first place. Then of course the Israelis broke the cease fire for very good reasons, no doubt about it.

Mhm...
... hours after Israeli forces killed six gunmen in a fresh bout of violence that threatened to unravel a five-month-old truce that has brought relief to both Gaza and southern Israel.

Practicing selective reading? ;)

[Sea Demon]

Not really sure that this is such a big deal. Seems more like the same old limp posturing from Russia.

What is President Bush going to do about it?

It's pretty obvious Sea Demon that you are one of those who are not even going to give your own President a chance to prove himself. How sad that you wish to see President Elect Obama fail and along with him your own nation.
You got it wrong. This is not good at all. This is obviously aimed at Obama. The Russians simply were not going to maneuver this far while Bush was a viable President. Bush is now on the way out, and is politically chained at this point. And the Russians know it. My hope would be that Obama would stand up to these cretins. Will he? I have serious doubts he could. He has shown nothing in him as being able to posture affirmatively against this type of hard power play. The Russians are moving missiles closer to Europe........anybody think an Obama administration can or will confront it? He will after all go to the negotiations table without any pre-conditions? Remember? Smells like an appeaser to me. Medvedev and Putin know exactly what they're up against. Obama will leave the Europeans to fend for themsleves if Russia decides to "exert their influence" over European interests. And I take no comfort in any of it from an American perspective looking in geostrategically. If it comes down to that, the Europeans may come to regret our choice this year. Yeah, and perhaps you have it wrong. How about you just wait and see how this plays out after Obama becomes President? Then judge him based on his record and actions as President. I see nothing different from your train of thought to those on the far left who slammed President Bush before he even took office. Give the guy a darn chance.

Like I said, I hope for the best, but expect the worst. I will be very happy if he stands his ground, and things work out, but chances are Obama will be played by both Putin and Medvedev. And a couple of others as well. Obama's own outlook prior to this has been appeasement on a very fundamental level. Also, his own view and words regarding military resources will assure we will not be able to maintain the deterrent force necessary to ward off or deter movements like this as well. I say this honestly as I care for my nation. I fear for what's in store for it regarding national security issues. And I think you Europeans may be in store for some interesting times regarding hard power in the near future.

[August]

Practicing selective reading? ;)

That's our Mik...

[Catfish]

Hello,
what if the EU, with the consent of Poland, got their grips together and told Russia where they can put their missiles ? :stare:
Along with the US "missile shield" of course. :stare:
What exactly was the argument for Bush to build up a missile shield in Poland ? Iranian missiles aimed at the EU ? Wow, this makes perfect sense to me. Did anyone who did partake in this decision, and made up this "reason", take the time to look at a map ?
It is only caspian oil and the new pipelines that matter, and the control of those regions, and i can even understand Russia feeling pi$$ed.

This idiotic russian statement is simply an answer for this idiotic missile shield policy. It would be good if this unified the EU, to give one decisive answer to Russia, or what's left of it.

This is a test for the new US president, and he should imho simply ignore it. If the EU is again too lame for a harsh reaction, it will certainly be the US who will answer this - but it should not. Russia is currently starving with falling oil and gas prices, and with the struggling world trade, and will react to substantial trade embargoes.

Greetings,
Catfish

[Thomen]

@Thomen, no, I did read it, I still don't get the headline.

It's a follow up report. If you bother to go back one or two days, you will see that Fox reported on the stuff already earlier.

[Sea Demon]

And what do you think these missiles are meant for, to start WWIII? They are meant as demonstration of a superpower, not really as a threat. It's just a bet for the political bargain, the Russians are in the game again, and they want more respect.
You guys look at things so 1 dimensional. This is only the beginning. It doesn't necessarily have to lead to WW3. They already got you Europeans by the crotch in your energy supplies. Now this. IMO, Obama's not going come to your rescue. Mark my words. The missile shield will probably go away. The Russian missiles won't. Nor will Russian new found confidence benefit you in any way. Good luck schmucks. :up:

[Thomen]

Hello,
what if the EU, with the consent of Poland, got their grips together and told Russia where they can put their missiles ? :stare:
Along with the US "missile shield" of course. :stare:
What exactly was the argument for Bush to build up a missile shield in Poland ? Iranian missiles aimed at the EU ? Wow, this makes perfect sense to me. Did anyone who did partake in this decision, and made up this "reason", take the time to look at a map ?
It is only caspian oil and the new pipelines that matter, and the control of those regions, and i can even understand Russia feeling pi$$ed.

This idiotic russian statement is simply an answer for this idiotic missile shield policy. It would be good if this unified the EU, to give one decisive answer to Russia, or what's left of it.

This is a test for the new US president, and he should imho simply ignore it. If the EU is again too lame for a harsh reaction, it will certainly be the US who will answer this - but it should not. Russia is currently starving with falling oil and gas prices, and with the struggling world trade, and will react to substantial trade embargoes.

Greetings,
Catfish

Wont happen, for some pretty simple reasons.
One of the them: Natural gas..

[Sea Demon]

Hello,
what if the EU, with the consent of Poland, got their grips together and told Russia where they can put their missiles ? :stare: Along with the US "missile shield" of course.

What if I told you you're dreaming. The EU is in no position to tell the Russians anything. Especially without US support. The Russians got you by the proverbial energy crotch. I'm not sure an Obama administration has the stomach to stand up for you to your Eastern "friends". The Russians as such most certainly can tell you where to go. So can we. The US missile shield may be gone at this point as well. Obama hasn't exactly been supportive of missile defense proposals at all.

[Thomen]

@Thomen, no, I did read it, I still don't get the headline.
It's a follow up report. If you bother to go back one or two days, you will see that Fox reported on the stuff already earlier.
Follow up of what ? It happened yesterday (tuesday) evening, there's nothing in the "related stories".

August: lol.

Mhm.. yea.. using the search option ought to be to easy, I guess

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,446805,00.html

[Bewolf]

Hello,
what if the EU, with the consent of Poland, got their grips together and told Russia where they can put their missiles ? :stare: Along with the US "missile shield" of course.

What if I told you you're dreaming. The EU is in no position to tell the Russians anything. Especially without US support. The Russians got you by the proverbial energy crotch. They most certainly can tell you where to go. So can we. The US missile shield may be gone at this point as well. Obama hasn't exactly been supportive of missile defense proposals at all.
Russia needs the money as much as Europe needs it's energy. Russia can provide some pressure through energy for a given time, but that's it. Now that russias market collapsed and prices for oil and gas are dropping this is true so even more. We Euros know Russia is not an essential threat, and Russia knows we know. What you see on TV is just the big game of politics, deception and pretention, just like in the best days of the cold war. Putin is not at all interested in going into war, he has nothing to win in such a scenario, especially as the ideology legitimating actions on an international level is gone. He also is not stupid, he realizes that. All he wants to serve are Russias minority complexes of having lost their diplomatic heavy weight and importance on the world stage. Putin simply wants to make Russia indispencible when it comes to international diplomacy, including potential conflicts like North Korea or Iran.

[Thomen]

@Thomen, no, I did read it, I still don't get the headline.
It's a follow up report. If you bother to go back one or two days, you will see that Fox reported on the stuff already earlier.
Follow up of what ? It happened yesterday (tuesday) evening, there's nothing in the "related stories".

August: lol.
Mhm.. yea.. using the search option ought to be to easy, I guess

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,446805,00.html
Oh, thank you. I'm kind of pissed at the blind zionism of most media and it gets easily on my nerves when I see that kind of headline (the previous one), like "gaza rocket barrage" when you go on Fox's "World" main page.

No problem :up:

[Sea Demon]

Russia needs the money as much as Europe needs it's energy. Russia can provide some pressure through energy for a given time, but that's it. Now that russias market collapsed and prices for oil and gas are dropping this is true so even more. We Euros know Russia is not an essential threat, and Russia knows we know. What you see on TV is just the big game of politics, deception and pretention, just like in the best days of the cold war. Putin is not at all interested in going into war, he has nothing to win in such a scenario, especially as the ideology legitimating actions on an international level is gone. He also is not stupid, he realizes that. All he wants to serve are Russias minority complexes of having lost their diplomatic heavy weight and importance on the world stage. Putin simply wants to make Russia indispencible when it comes to international diplomacy.

You keep telling yourself that. It is merely blind comfort for you. I actually feel sorry for you people over there. I agree. In the context of the current world Russia needs your money. However it's much harder to judge the geostrategic significance of that arena with a USA that has an administration in place with no stomach to support your security interests over there. Russia need not wage any battles. Nor do they need to win any wars to "exert" themselves over your interests. Obama probably ain't gonna help you in any way. Judging by some of his previous outlooks on things and the people he's likely to have in his administration. And I feel that is regrettable.

[GlobalExplorer]

You guys look at things so 1 dimensional. This is only the beginning. It doesn't necessarily have to lead to WW3. They already got you Europeans by the crotch in your energy supplies. Now this. IMO, Obama's not going come to your rescue. Mark my words. The missile shield will probably go away. The Russian missiles won't. Nor will Russian new found confidence benefit you in any way. Good luck schmucks. :up:
Schmucks, oi-oi-oi :p That with the energy supply is true, you know we lost 2 wars, we were outnumbered and now have zero resources, and we can do nothing. Or are you implying Germany should re-arm, get our act together and finally make up for Stalingrad?

P.S. Sea Demon, you're clairvoyant by any means?

[Sea Demon]

Schmucks, oi-oi-oi :p That with the energy supply is true, you know we lost 2 wars, we were outnumbered and now have zero resources, and we can do nothing. Or are you implying Germany should re-arm, get our act together and finally make up for Stalingrad?

I seriously don't think you guys are capable of that anymore. Just being honest.

[GlobalExplorer]

You wouldn't let us, would you?

[Sea Demon]

Sea Demon is forgetting that since Europe turned socialist Russia is no longer the enemy. Soon we will unite with the motherland and go after the imperialist capitalist America :smug:
The Russians aren't laughing. They're pointing missiles at you.

[GlobalExplorer]

And at you too, you schmucks! :up:

[AVGWarhawk]

And at you too, you schmucks! :up:
]
Yeah, Sarah Palin says she sees them from her porch don't cha know.

[Bewolf]

Russia needs the money as much as Europe needs it's energy. Russia can provide some pressure through energy for a given time, but that's it. Now that russias market collapsed and prices for oil and gas are dropping this is true so even more. We Euros know Russia is not an essential threat, and Russia knows we know. What you see on TV is just the big game of politics, deception and pretention, just like in the best days of the cold war. Putin is not at all interested in going into war, he has nothing to win in such a scenario, especially as the ideology legitimating actions on an international level is gone. He also is not stupid, he realizes that. All he wants to serve are Russias minority complexes of having lost their diplomatic heavy weight and importance on the world stage. Putin simply wants to make Russia indispencible when it comes to international diplomacy.
You keep telling yourself that. It is merely blind comfort for you. I actually feel sorry for you people over there. I agree. In the context of the current world Russia needs your money. However it's much harder to judge the geostrategic significance of that arena with a USA that has an administration in place with no stomach to support your security interests over there. Russia need not wage any battles. Nor do they need to win any wars to "exert" themselves over your interests. Obama probably ain't gonna help you in any way. Judging by some of his previous outlooks on things and the people he's likely to have in his administration. And I feel that is regrettable.


You see, there is your misconception. If worse should really come to worse, the US would have no chance but to provide that support if they want to hold on their standing in the world. It's in it's own essential interest, coming close only to defending the US itself. And the same applies to Europe should the US ever get "really" threatend. You may not realize this, but only Europe is able and willing to support the US in a way it can make real world moving politics. Without that support the US would stand alone, isolated from the rest. And the US is by far not that unvulnerable that it can comfortably live without it's allies. That would have been McCains politics, and that for sure also is Obamas politics.

[GlobalExplorer]

And at you too, you schmucks! :up: ]
Yeah, Sarah Palin says she sees them from her porch don't cha know.

But she is allowed to own guns and we are not.

http://lh4.ggpht.com/sayuncle/SLgVH-68yhI/AAAAAAAAAUo/PmutOsfecUI/s400/hot.jpg

http://images.huffingtonpost.com/2008-08-29-sarahwithtrig.jpg


America !! :damn:

[Catfish]

Hello,

SeaDemon:
" ... Obama probably ain't gonna help you in any way. ..."

I think it was in 1989/90 when some basic things changed dramatically concerning your "geostrategic significance". The time of military imperial superpowers are gone, if at all this is the time of economical warfare.

Obama will have to clear up the inherited mess in your country that grew in the last years, end the financial crisis and decide whether you keep spending billions of dollars in your worldwide wars "to represent your international interests", rather than educating your children. I think he will have his hands full, don't you think so?

You may or you may not realize it - we do not want to have the US help us - against whom ? From what ? The goddam Russians would have been your allies against terrorism or whatever, they are keen of joining the Nato :88)

We will keep buying your Coca Cola and Computers, and some of the US will probably keep buying our cars. But this is because of taste, quality and respect, not because either side supports the other's politics, or geostrategic interests.

I found this Bush-bashing rather idiotic, but he was no statesman in my eyes. And how can - in a democracy - the son of a president again become one, like in royal succession. Was there really no better man ?

" ...I actually feel sorry for you people over there. ..."
I can honestly say we felt the same for you in the past eight years ;)

Greetings,
Catfish

[Sea Demon]

You see, there is your misconception. If worse should really come to worse, the US would have no chance but to provide that support if they want to hold on their standing in the world. It's in it's own essential interest, coming close only to defending the US itself. And the same applies to Europe should the US ever get "really" threatend. You may not realize this, but only Europe is able and willing to support the US in a way it can make real world moving politics. Without that support the US would stand alone, isolated from the rest. And the US is by far not that unvulnerable that it can comfortably live without it's allies. That would have been McCains politics, and that for sure also is Obamas politics.
We are not constitutionally obligated to defend you or your interests. That's where you're wrong. The thing I also find funny, is you truly think that most of us here in America truly care about your perceptions of us. Most of us care about what's in our own interests primarily. Sorry, but it's true. With that in mind, I believe European security is good for American security. I was deployed to Spangdahlem (the mighty 52nd) in the late 90's. Although the threat was low, I would have been more than willing to defend your homes in the context of both US and NATO security. But with an Obama administration, I'm not convinced that your security will be much of a priority anymore. And securing your interests against uncommon and assymetric threats is most likely out of the question.

For your sake, you better hope Iran doesn't develop nuclear warheads. They already have missiles that can reach you. And an Ayatollah and President that speak of apocalype as a way to usher in the era of the Mahdi. The US missile shield is probably going away. And we have elected an administration more concerned about "spreading the wealth" and providing "hope". If you are going to be confronted by Russian "influence" or Iranian madness, I don't believe an Obama administration is going to come to help you. I hope I'm wrong. But what scares me to death is I'm most likely correct.

[Sea Demon]

Hello,
I think it was in 1989/90 when some basic things changed dramatically concerning your "geostrategic significance". The time of military imperial superpowers are gone, if at all this is the time of economical warfare.


While the Russians move missiles close to your borders, you might want to wake the hell up. Just a suggestion.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=081105114620.ota6n5i1&show_article=1

[GlobalExplorer]

For your sake, you better hope Iran doesn't develop nuclear warheads. They already have missiles that can reach you. And an Ayatollah and President that speak of apocalype as a way to usher in the era of the Mahdi.

I don't believe that stuff. You think you know them because you watch the televitz. I know Iranians and they are really smart people. The problem is rather they hate Israel, and that is very deep.

[Sea Demon]

For your sake, you better hope Iran doesn't develop nuclear warheads. They already have missiles that can reach you. And an Ayatollah and President that speak of apocalype as a way to usher in the era of the Mahdi.
I don't believe that stuff. You think you know them because you watch the televitz. I know Iranians and they are really smart people. The problem is rather they hate Israel, and that is very deep.
Well, like I said. You better hope you're correct. We have the beliefs of the Ayatollah, the words of the Iranian President, and a known nuclear program. We know the Shahab-3 exists and what capability it has. Ignore those signs at your own peril. Don't forget those Russian missiles moving West either. And with an Obama administration with the potential cabinet appointees I've seen so far......good luck.

[Bewolf]

You see, there is your misconception. If worse should really come to worse, the US would have no chance but to provide that support if they want to hold on their standing in the world. It's in it's own essential interest, coming close only to defending the US itself. And the same applies to Europe should the US ever get "really" threatend. You may not realize this, but only Europe is able and willing to support the US in a way it can make real world moving politics. Without that support the US would stand alone, isolated from the rest. And the US is by far not that unvulnerable that it can comfortably live without it's allies. That would have been McCains politics, and that for sure also is Obamas politics.
We are not constitutionally obligated to defend you or your interests. That's where you're wrong. The thing I also find funny, is you truly think that most of us here in America truly care about your perceptions of us. Most of us care about what's in our own interests primarily. Sorry, but it's true. With that in mind, I believe European security is good for American security. I was deployed to Spangdahlem (the mighty 52nd) in the late 90's. Although the threat was low, I would have been more than willing to defend your homes in the context of both US and NATO security. But with an Obama administration, I'm not convinced that your security will be much of a priority anymore. And securing your interests against uncommon and assymetric threats is most likely out of the question.

For your sake, you better hope Iran doesn't develop nuclear warheads. They already have missiles that can reach you. And an Ayatollah and President that speak of apocalype as a way to usher in the era of the Mahdi. The US missile shield is probably going away. And we have elected an administration more concerned about "spreading the wealth" and providing "hope". If you are going to be confronted by Russian "influence" or Iranian madness, I don't believe an Obama administration is going to come to help you. I hope I'm wrong. But what scares me to death is I'm most likely correct.
Geez, man, you have no idea about the basics of US foreign politics. You also have no idea about your own country's future president. Heck, even I have a better picture of this man then you do if you think Obama won't follow traditional U.S.politics with only nuances changing. The election is over, one Candidate won and it's urgent time to come down with this kinda panic making and "ooooh noez doomsday!" rethorics. Heaven, this may fly with uneducated rednecks who have no idea how the world works and that France is not located in the middle east. But don't attempt this with me, kay? I am allergical to Propaganda.

P.S. Here, I just found something interesting.

http://english.pravda.ru/topic/elections-608/ (http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/columnists/04-11-2008/106660-changebetter-0)

Lot's of stuff to read. There you see pretty much exactly how the russians work atm. Big talk here. If taken seriously, the russians got what they wanted.

[mrbeast]

Russia has absolutely Zero to gain by instigating a war with Europe or any other major gobal player. Certainly, Russia is not losing any sleep over menacing one or two of its weaker neighbours. Western Europe would be another matter militarily and besides why would Russia want to destroy one of its major its energy markets?

[Sea Demon]

Geez, man, you have no idea about the basics of US foreign politics. You also have no idea about your own country's future president. Heck, even I have a better picture of this man then you do if you think Obama won't follow traditional U.S.politics with only nuances changing. The election is over, one Candidate won and it's urgent time to come down with this kinda panic making and "ooooh noez doomsday!" rethorics. Heaven, this may fly with uneducated rednecks who have no idea how the world works and that France is not located in the middle east. But don't attempt this with me, kay? I am allergical to Propaganda.

You don't have any idea about anything. The President has leverage over matters of military concern, including deployments and R&D proposals. Also missile defense, while funded through the Congress will not have any priorities without Presidential approval. He will approve or disapprove the budgeting for it. In addition, the Democrat Congress currently running the show has no intention of pursuing it. They have shown that. In addition, there has indeed been alot of differences in how Presidents have viewed the world and acted accordingly. On a fundamental level, while Mr. Clinton treated terrorist operations as a purely criminal matter, Mr. Bush treated it as an act of war by non-aligned terrorist organizations. And has pursued it to the level of nation state sponsors of terror. Big, big difference.

You see absolutely nothing. Indeed Mr. Bush has promoted and actively pursued high tech weapons programs that will ensure future security for America and her allies. Mr. Obama has talked of cutting many of these programs, and has shown particular disdain for missile shield proposals. This may have an adverse effect on your own security. We don't even have the shield deployed, and Russia is moving missiles to your border. We'll see how Obama responds, but as of now, it is certain that Russian leadership is intent on pushing Mr. Obama and finding his weak points. I find this to be troubling to say the least. And as said before, we have no constitutional obligation to defend you or your interests. I'm not sure exactly what Obama's foreign policy will be. But I got a good idea by some of his past remarks, and names being floated around as possible cabinet appointees. It doesn't fare well for Europe with a Russia intent on reasserting itself. The fact that you don't believe US policy can change, especially with current global and financial consequences, tells me you don't get it. You're right, Mr. Obama won the election. I accept that. And I'm willing to give him a chance. But I worry about these things as Mr. Obama has shown himself to be an appeaser (in comments) and Russian missiles are moving toward Europe. You expect him to follow a model of central security, through a model of deterrence against a Russia intent on reasserting itself and holding you guys by the crotch on energy. I'm saying don't hold your breath. There is simply nothing there in US policy guaranteeing we secure your interests for you. None at all. Believe me, you may be on the verge of that being demonstrated.

[Bewolf]

Geez, man, you have no idea about the basics of US foreign politics. You also have no idea about your own country's future president. Heck, even I have a better picture of this man then you do if you think Obama won't follow traditional U.S.politics with only nuances changing. The election is over, one Candidate won and it's urgent time to come down with this kinda panic making and "ooooh noez doomsday!" rethorics. Heaven, this may fly with uneducated rednecks who have no idea how the world works and that France is not located in the middle east. But don't attempt this with me, kay? I am allergical to Propaganda.
You don't have any idea about anything. The President has leverage over matters of military concern, including deployments and R&D proposals. Also missile defense, while funded through the Congress will not have any priorities without Presidential approval. He will approve or disapprove the budgeting for it. In addition, the Democrat Congress currently running the show has no intention of pursuing it. They have shown that. In addition, there has indeed been alot of differences in how Presidents have viewed the world and acted accordingly. On a fundamental level, while Mr. Clinton treated terrorist operations as a purely criminal matter, Mr. Bush treated it as an act of war by non-aligned terrorist organizations. And has pursued it to the level of nation state sponsors of terror. Big, big difference.

You see absolutely nothing. Indeed Mr. Bush has promoted and actively pursued high tech weapons programs that will ensure future security for America and her allies. Mr. Obama has talked of cutting many of these programs, and has shown particular disdain for missile shield proposals. This may have an adverse effect on your own security. We don't even have the shield deployed, and Russia is moving missiles to your border. We'll see how Obama responds, but as of now, it is certain that Russian leadership is intent on pushing Mr. Obama and finding his weak points. I find this to be troubling to say the least. And as said before, we have no constitutional obligation to defend you or your interests. I'm not sure exactly what Obama's foreign policy will be. But I got a good idea by some of his past remarks, and names being floated around as possible cabinet appointees. It doesn't fare well for Europe with a Russia intent on reasserting itself. The fact that you don't believe US policy can change, especially with current global and financial consequences, tells me you don't get it. You're right, Mr. Obama won the election. I accept that. And I'm willing to give him a chance. But I worry about these things as Mr. Obama has shown himself to be an appeaser (in comments) and Russian missiles are moving toward Europe. You expect him to follow a model of central security, through a model of deterrence against a Russia intent on reasserting itself and holding you guys by the crotch on energy. I'm saying don't hold your breath. There is simply nothing there in US policy guaranteeing we secure your interests for you. None at all. Believe me, you may be on the verge of that being demonstrated.


I c.

well, let's agree to disagree, yes?

[AVGWarhawk]

Geez, man, you have no idea about the basics of US foreign politics. You also have no idea about your own country's future president. Heck, even I have a better picture of this man then you do if you think Obama won't follow traditional U.S.politics with only nuances changing. The election is over, one Candidate won and it's urgent time to come down with this kinda panic making and "ooooh noez doomsday!" rethorics. Heaven, this may fly with uneducated rednecks who have no idea how the world works and that France is not located in the middle east. But don't attempt this with me, kay? I am allergical to Propaganda.
You don't have any idea about anything. The President has leverage over matters of military concern, including deployments and R&D proposals. Also missile defense, while funded through the Congress will not have any priorities without Presidential approval. He will approve or disapprove the budgeting for it. In addition, the Democrat Congress currently running the show has no intention of pursuing it. They have shown that. In addition, there has indeed been alot of differences in how Presidents have viewed the world and acted accordingly. On a fundamental level, while Mr. Clinton treated terrorist operations as a purely criminal matter, Mr. Bush treated it as an act of war by non-aligned terrorist organizations. And has pursued it to the level of nation state sponsors of terror. Big, big difference.

You see absolutely nothing. Indeed Mr. Bush has promoted and actively pursued high tech weapons programs that will ensure future security for America and her allies. Mr. Obama has talked of cutting many of these programs, and has shown particular disdain for missile shield proposals. This may have an adverse effect on your own security. We don't even have the shield deployed, and Russia is moving missiles to your border. We'll see how Obama responds, but as of now, it is certain that Russian leadership is intent on pushing Mr. Obama and finding his weak points. I find this to be troubling to say the least. And as said before, we have no constitutional obligation to defend you or your interests. I'm not sure exactly what Obama's foreign policy will be. But I got a good idea by some of his past remarks, and names being floated around as possible cabinet appointees. It doesn't fare well for Europe with a Russia intent on reasserting itself. The fact that you don't believe US policy can change, especially with current global and financial consequences, tells me you don't get it. You're right, Mr. Obama won the election. I accept that. And I'm willing to give him a chance. But I worry about these things as Mr. Obama has shown himself to be an appeaser (in comments) and Russian missiles are moving toward Europe. You expect him to follow a model of central security, through a model of deterrence against a Russia intent on reasserting itself and holding you guys by the crotch on energy. I'm saying don't hold your breath. There is simply nothing there in US policy guaranteeing we secure your interests for you. None at all. Believe me, you may be on the verge of that being demonstrated.


I c.

well, let's agree to disagree, yes?

France is not in the Middle East?:88) Gosh, this really changes things. As far as Bush being a part of R&D for high tech weapons, I can assure you, he does. Heck, we can even look at Ronnies "Star Wars" tech. He was very much in the thick of it concerning high tech weapons. Even ficticious ones. As far a missles in Poland and a shield not up yet, they were there three years ago. I can assure you of this as well. Obama is a babe in the woods on foreign affairs. I was telling when he said he would pull the troops out of Iraq immediately. He changed his tune when he got the briefing from the big boys on Iraq. What, he picked Joe Biden because he has a nice set of teeth? Biden is the foreign relations gaffer. That was Obama answer to no foreign affair experience on his ticket. Guess what, he still has no experience today after the election. Furthermore, the transition period is not to show Obama were the bathrooms are in the White House and Bush packs his under shorts. This period is to feed Obama up to the minute issues that are only viewed and discussed at the Presidentual level. The Russians are playing a very funny game but no one is laughing. The Russians have become oil rich and are getting drunk on it. Now they want the fat pipeline running through Georgia. Most of this is just some muscle flexing but no one will push a button because there are two buttons involved.

and thus begins the transition....he is in the know and briefed on all...

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=6191835&page=1


I suspect Obama is going to say WTF after his briefing.

[baggygreen]

Followed closely by "oh, sh!t, why didnt you bastards tell me this before!"

[Christopher Snow]

I do feel sorry for the Poles in particular. They strike me as a generally courageous and patriotic people, even when faced with an enemy of overwhelming power.

Of all the people in the EU, I feel the worst for them, should the Big Russian Bear begin, once again to cast his eyes westward....

What a lot of people in the EU don't seem to realize is: The Russians DON'T need the money. Why would they sit quietly and wait to be handed the money, when they can simply take over the bank? And if they DO take western Europe, then the populace there will find themselves working for the benefit of their new masters in the East (it won't be the Socialism you are all used to, I can assure you). It will be "slave labor" all over again, as it was under the Nazis.

Short of committing to a full-scale nuclear intervention, I think there is nothing the US, today, could do (even if it were willing) to prevent even a medium-sized westward move on the part of the Russians.

I believe we no longer have the capability to stop them on only a "conventional-conflict" basis--too much of our lifesblood and too much of our force has been expended in other venues in recent years...and there is very little in reserve.

Moreover, I suspect very few current US military personnel will re-enlist now, after seeing the results of the election yesterday, so whatever force we DO have in the next few years will be quite a bit less capable than the one we've had up 'til now--the sense I get is that our military feels we, the general public, have turned our backs on them...and so they are no longer very motivated to defend us (the US military vote went about 3:1 or 4:1 for McCain, I think).

So...Obama will reintroduce the draft as a stop-gap measure...but the US populace will have little belief in it.

And meanwhile, the Russians will press ever further toward the west.

Bad, bad times are ahead for all of us.


CS

[August]

I believe we no longer have the capability to stop them on only a "conventional-conflict" basis--too much of our lifesblood and too much of our force has been expended in other venues in recent years...and there is very little in reserve.

We never did have that capability with only conventional weapons. Had the Warsaw Pact ever attempted to invade Western Europe it would have taken nukes to stop them.

[Christopher Snow]

I believe we no longer have the capability to stop them on only a "conventional-conflict" basis--too much of our lifesblood and too much of our force has been expended in other venues in recent years...and there is very little in reserve.
We never did have that capability with only conventional weapons. Had the Warsaw Pact ever attempted to invade Western Europe it would have taken nukes to stop them.
From what I know, I believe you are right. Tactical NUKES anyway (nuclear artillary).

Even that might not be enough today (to be honest, I have only the vaguest idea of our current capability...or lack thereof...in this area).

I would dearly love to find out we have it handled...and that there is no reason to worry.. But, then, I'd also dearly love to learn the "Denver Broncos*" had a capable defense this season too. :D.

[*an "American Football" team--NFL]


CS

[August]

From what I know, I believe you are right. Tactical NUKES anyway (nuclear artillary).
Yeah, also SRBM's and aircraft delivered stuff.

Without them we were looking at a 10-1 and worse Soviet/Nato superiority in most conventional forces and the quality difference back then wasn't nearly as pronounced as it is today.

[McBeck]

And as said before, we have no constitutional obligation to defend you or your interests.Right. Are you a part of Nato?

[Hanomag]

An old 82nd cadance comes to mind...

"Hey Mother Russia.... you'd better behave....

Gonna fill your skies with maroon beret..."

bah! ...all this political posturing... just put 'em over the DZ already! :arrgh!:

[Sea Demon]

And as said before, we have no constitutional obligation to defend you or your interests.Right. Are you a part of Nato?

NATO is not a part of our Constitution. ;) And Russia need not go to war to exert alot of influence and pressure over your security and economic interests. I don't believe an Obama administration will do anything on your behalf.

[Bewolf]

And as said before, we have no constitutional obligation to defend you or your interests.Right. Are you a part of Nato?
NATO is not a part of our Constitution. ;) And Russia need not go to war to exert alot of influence and pressure over your security and economic interests. I don't believe an Obama administration will do anything on your behalf.

There is a little difference with applying pressure...and beeing successful in applying pressure.

[AntEater]

1st of all, perspective:
Iskander (SS-26) is not the "OMFG teh end of teh world nuke" missile.
It is a conventional short range theater ballistic missile, basically the grandson of the Scud.
A nuke warhead is optional, but currently all Iskanders are conventional.
The US Army has a similar weapon, the MGM-140 ATACMs, which was liberally used in Iraq 2003.
These weapons have a small CEP and could take out both the Silos and the Radar with conventional warheads.
So basically, Russia is moving around 30-60 2000 pound unitary or cluster bombs to Kaliningrad. The only difference between these and air dropped bombs is that their carrier system can't be shot down that easily.
The Iskander is maybe the best theater ballistic missile in its class in the world, but it is currently neither a nuclear nor a long ranged missile system.
Iskander could be turned into something like the SS-20, but not on the field.
Missiles of such range, like Tochka, have always been stationed in Kaliningrad, only those have a much larger CEP.
Iskander was originally developed as a division level artillery missile, same as Scud or Tochka.
Now they're deployed in seperate battalions largely because there are not enough of them to equip all russian divisions and also they make a nice boogeyrocket. Iskander is a propaganda ploy and a remarkable archievement in rocket science in one....

Secondly, Russia is announcing that it would do that if negotiations over the BMD system fail.
They're not implementing this move right now. Sometimes I feel people in the media actually want war.

And don't get me started with the Poles. Actually the poles I know are quite OK but the country's Government and Media are certainly getting on my nerves with their eternal living in the past.
I love history but for the poles it seems mostly a tool for nationalism, not to mention their rather "creative" approach to it, like mostly forgetting to mention they did not beat the Turks all by themselves at Vienna or that their army failed to take the Marienburg after Grunwald.
Also their eternal hatred for Germans and Russians, their eternal sabotage of the EU, their constant biting the hand that feeds them.
It was basically us who helped them get back on their feet after 1991, and what did we get for it? Constant spitting in the face.
We gave them our remaining MiG-29s plus a hundred Leopard 2s for 1 Euro the same year Poland elected a government campaigning on racial hatred against Germans.
So, we had wars in the past, so what? France regularly turned western Germany into a desert every 20 years until 1815 (and we invaded them three times more recently) and we still get along today, as we do with Belgium and the Netherlands.


Actually all of eastern europe is getting on my nerves with their moronic ultranationalism.
Who cares if the newly independend republic of ****holistan has a 10.000 year old unique culture which makes them better than their hated neighbours in Molvania?
This place allready got us one world war for sure, and the second one had its roots there as well.

[Sea Demon]

There is a little difference with applying pressure...and beeing successful in applying pressure.

You guys in the EU have no leverage to stop a Russia intent on reasserting themselves. And you have other major problems ahead as well. Like the Muslim population outbreeding you there. Without US support, and support in actions, you guys are gonna be hurting. In response to AntEater, Russia can say whatever they want to comfort your souls. They got you by the rocks buddy. Without a US administration that can stand up to these guys, you guys may be on the verge of seeing Russia exerting major influence in your world. And it won't be friendly.

[AntEater]

Do Americans reproduce themselves if not for immigration and birth rate of recent immigrants?
It is not Joe the Plumber who keeps the birthrate up but Jose' the Plumber.
Though I'd take Latinos over Turks any day (maybe because I don't know that many) judging from forum posts here, these people are as alien to US culture as muslims are to ours, despite what Obama might say.

And with the Muslims, I think I know which superpower we have to thank for them....
Also, what is so inherently bad abour Russia reasserting itself.
It is not the soviet union, it is Russia.
We've been living with them for a thousand years and a majority of the time we were not at war.
Russia might not be a superpower, but it certainly is a huge nation which has a certain influence.
A Europe without Russia is like a europe without Germany or France. Some people might like it that way, but they're here and we have to deal with them.
What would be your plan for that country?
Brezinky's plan of causing civil war and divide it up into dozens of ****holes for easy control?
Actually that would cause more death and destruction than any major european war.
I don't understand that silly confrontation course, and don't give me democracy.
I don't see any kind of such hostility against Saudi Arabia. Not even against China.
The US needs China, so they shut up about China.
US needs Saud-Arabia, so they shut up about that muslim variant of North Korea
Europe needs Russia, so we shut up about Russia.
Not to mention that compared to both, Russia is quite harmless.
Gary Kasparov would've been paraded around in a stadium with a wooden sign around his neck and then shot in China. In SA he would've lost his head.


Also, quit whining about european weakness. Just because we don't run around bragging with our military like adolescent boys doesn't mean we don't have any.
In a major european war, the fighting and dying would be up to the europeans, just as it would've been in the cold war, despite Tom Clancy portraying only US units
West Germany alone would've fielded over a million men after mobilization.

[GlobalExplorer]

P.S. Here, I just found something interesting.
http://english.pravda.ru/topic/elections-608/ (http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/columnists/04-11-2008/106660-changebetter-0)

But isn't the pravda anachronistic loo paper anyway? Some quotes from, er, pravda.
Only Satan would have been worse than the Bush regime.
:cough:
Biden, is very much establishment and Zionist
:facepalm:
the people of the USA have voted out the Bush regime and the odious mass-murdering thugs which controlled it and saw Washington vying with Nazi Germany for a place on the Podium of Horror. Himmler and Rumsfeld the Torturers, Goebbels and Rice the propaganda machines, Hitler and Bush the Fuhrers, masterminding concentration camps, medieval-style torture chambers, illegal invasions, acts of mass slaughter and horrific acts of cruelty as international law was consigned to the dustbin.
USA, this is what you see when you look into the mirror. Not very eloquent with those miserable nazi comparisons, but in principle here you can read what they think about you, without a filter.

Good that it ends on a more agreeable note:
Those of us in the international community who predicted eight long years ago what would happen if Bush were elected must do two things. First, never forget the damage done by George W. Bush and his minions of evil and make sure that, like the generations after Hitler, history does not pardon these criminals as well-meaning politicians who were the victims of tough times. Secondly, we must give Barack Obama a blank page to write on, and hand him the pen with a sincere and open smile. Welcome back, people of the United States, welcome back into the fold of the international community, where you will find friends and not foes, where you will find we all prefer to smile and not to cry and that when we do cry, our tears taste of salt just like yours do, whether we are pink, blue, white, yellow or black.
Like many of our former enemy countries, their relation to Hitler seems almost sexually motivated.
our tears taste of salt just like yours do, whether we are pink, blue, white, yellow or black
That's what you should try and understand before you take the article apart. I hope they can be taken more seriously at the end and that antisemitic nazi Satan drivel at the beginning can be attributed to just lack of intelligence.

[Skybird]

AntEater,

:yep:

The Poles abuse the umbrella of their NATO membership for trying to straighten some bills with the Russians, by provoking them where they can and pokingthem in their backs with a pencil. That is not what NATO is there for. Warzaw finally should get a clear Western bashing for not stopping to do so childishly and narrow-minded.

Those people who now feel provoked by Russian missiles in the Kaliningrad enclave now experience how it feels from the Russian side with the Western plans for that missile system in Poland and the Czech republik. And the russians wanted to acchieve that effect, else they would not have chosen that isolated enclave, but some territory attached to the Russian mainland. It is an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. and once again: they have said they would react to the american plans, sooner or later. we would do the same, if we were in their place.

This does not mean that their demand to be seen as a global power on same eye level with the US isn't a bit exaggerated. The west heavily depends on Russia, for cooperation in the UN (Iran, etc), and energy. but the russians do not have the ability to actively manouver around all the globe and project military power at will like america can. However, just ignoring them and dealing with them as haughty and arrogant as over the past 15 years, does not work, for that they are too strong a regional power on quite a bit of the planet's surface. Leave them in their sphere of influence and avoid useless provokations over nothing but the question who has the longer one. Accepting them to play their opera costs us nothing, but eventually earns us their good will in cooperation in international issues (of which their are so damn many that the West alone cannot solve them), so smile and clap your hands and accept to spend some flattery on them. that they cannot or do not wish to contribute to those mentioned internantional issues does not mean that we necessarily can have progress in these fields against them. Regarding the Kaukasus, that's their playground, not Washingtons, like Kanada or Mexico is not the Russian's playground, so leave them alone there. And Saakashvilistan - is not worth to mess up our relations with Russia for it, the government there is autocratic, supressive, it lied, betrayed and commited the same warcrimes it accused the russians of, so to hell with it. Regarding Ukraine, we should try to influence both sides to not using military force over their differences, but we should not allow the Ukraine into NATO. Beyond that, we should leave the issues to the two of them. Poland and the Baltic, despite all the hysteria by some, in no way I can see to be at risk.

[Sea Demon]

P.S. Here, I just found something interesting.
http://english.pravda.ru/topic/elections-608/ (http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/columnists/04-11-2008/106660-changebetter-0)


Stupid article. That's all it is. Consider the source. There's so much stupidity in it, there's really no place to begin chopping it up. It is one of the most idiotic analysis of the USA that I have ever seen.

And with the Muslims, I think I know which superpower we have to thank for them....
Also, what is so inherently bad abour Russia reasserting itself.
It is not the soviet union, it is Russia.
We've been living with them for a thousand years and a majority of the time we were not at war.
Russia might not be a superpower, but it certainly is a huge nation which has a certain influence.
A Europe without Russia is like a europe without Germany or France. Some people might like it that way, but they're here and we have to deal with them.

Did you just hear that today, there is some talks in Russia that maybe Mr. Putin could become President again? It's not the Soviet Union, but there is an aura of totalitarianism rearing it's ugly head there. The funny yet sad thing is, you are oblivious and in denial to some of the dangers you guys are confronting. Not just with Russian missiles, potential Iranian nukes, or Muslim influence in your governments (sharia in the future for you??) with their exploding populations, but with your own deflating ability to protect your own interests..... in conjunction with a reassertive Russia knocking on the door. You think that if we remove our missile defenses and radars and leave European soil, the Russians are going to remove their missiles, leave you alone, and you will all live happily ever after. I wouldn't bet the bank on it. I know the template you guys in Europe use is America is at fault for everything (a very lazy view actually), but for the life of me, have you seen how Putin and Co. has interjected himself into the affairs of sovereign nations near you? And he's moving closer in influence and hard power to your homes. Some of you Euro's need to wake the hell up and at least show some state of vigilance. Especially since now I find it unlikely the USA will be in a position to help you much. The new administration, if I take him at his words, has no interest in pursuing conflict in any region for any reason. Sitting at the negotiation table with no pre-conditions is our new foreign policy I'm afraid. A guy like Putin will regrettably chew up an administration like this.

[AntEater]

This "Putin takes power" is simply BS, as far as I can see. Medvedev is certainly not playing bad cop like he does to give up the playing field prematurely. He just tries to assert himself as the tough guy. Hardly a move if you plan on leaving office in a year.
Maybe Putin will run after Medvedev's term is over, who knows?

So even IF Russia is totalitarian and whatnot, what do you think it wants from western Europe?
Annex territory? Certainly not. The most extreme thing imaginable would be to restore the soviet border, but even that would mean neither Poland nor the CR or anyone else except the Baltics would be annexed. But the baltic states are in NATO so it would be pretty suicidal anyway.
Belarus wants to be annexed but Russia doesn't want to at the moment.
The eastern half of Ukraine wouldn't mind either. The western half would mind, though.
Not even Vladimir Zhirinovsky wants to march on Warsaw, much less on Berlin or Prague.
"Regime change"? Unlikely, but it could be possible that Moscow tries to meddle in our affairs the same way the US does now for ages: By cultivating politicians, who act as some kind of proxies for US interests. Russians could do the same, sure, but even the influence of those US trojan donkeys is somewhat limited.
Economic blackmail? As many have posted, the relationship is mutual. In pure monetary terms, Germany exports more to Russia than Russia exports to Germany.
Its mostly industrial goods versus natural resources.
Russia needs an industrial base and western Europe can provide that with expertise and industrial manufacturing. I've worked for companies in russian business and I can tell you, they're tough, but they are not as terribly arrogant as the Chinese and they won't screw you over by reverse engineering your stuff overnight like the Chinese.
Doing industrial construction in Russia is a sound long term strategy, while doing the same in China is economic suicide.
If russia turns of the gas, Europe can't provide Russia with the industry it needs to provide Russians with a higher standard of living. And THAT is the benchmark by which the russian voter (yes, the Russians actually still voted for Putin and Medvedev) makes his decisions.
Those two are so popular because they raised the living standard for the average russian. If they fail on doing that, they will lose power.

Problem is, Politicians and media talk like this is the cold war, while in reality, Russia kind of belongs to the same economic circle as Europe. In fact, Poland and the Baltics would be pretty screwed if not for the Russian trade.

Btw, with the immigrant problem, I agree with you, it was a shortsighted policy by european leaders and something needs to be done about it. On the other hand, birthrate both in muslim countries and in immigrant communities is declining as well, so the time window of "outbreeding" might be shorter than the jihadis hope for.


- Still feeling like casting pearls before swine. I think some posters here are simply unable to comprehend anything more complicated that "Russia baaaaad, 'Murka goooood".-

[Sea Demon]

This "Putin takes power" is simply BS, as far as I can see. Medvedev is certainly not playing bad cop like he does to give up the playing field prematurely. He just tries to assert himself as the tough guy. Hardly a move if you plan on leaving office in a year.
Maybe Putin will run after Medvedev's term is over, who knows?

So even IF Russia is totalitarian and whatnot, what do you think it wants from western Europe?


Well, bottom line, they want to dominate the sphere of influence over your area of the world. And in a way they already have some of that. The wildcard is you guys have always had US support to temper any kind of ambition from turning into something more. I hope it's not the case, but our new administration looks like it's not the kind that deals with this level of confrontation very effectively or at all. In this environment, who knows what kind of concessions or "deals" they might want with you. They do have an unbalanced leverage with you now. And unfortunately totalitarian models of governments have never played "nice". As such, the more these people get in concessions from you, the more they will want. Doesn't need to go to the war model. If you think that 21st century totalitarianism is any different from any other era, you're kidding yourself.

[MothBalls]

It wouldn't surprise me one bit if the US backed down and pulled the idea of a defense shield out of Poland completely. Wouldn't bother me either. Put the shield around the US, let everyone else develop their own if they need one.

[AntEater]

Actually I've had quite a good idea what to do with Poland:
The US could remove the missiles, and send ground troops instead, maybe an armoured division or so.
Maybe the remaining army forces in Germany.
This would have benefits for all involved:
- Russia feels threatened by the missile shield, but does not need to fear a few Abrams rumbling through the middle of polish nowhere. You can't march on Moscow with a division.
- Russia's "Stong!11!!" faction like Zhirinovsky could ramble endlessly how quickly Russia could wipe out these troops
- Russian army would have some justification for new toys
- Poland would actually have some genuine US protection instead of just installing a few bull's eyes on their territory
- Polish army would benefit from training
- GIs could enjoy polish vodka, girls and cuisine (ok, maybe not :D)
- rural polish communities would benefit from development like german rural communities did in the cold war

So, everyone's a winner :)

[MothBalls]

Actually I've had quite a good idea what to do with Poland:
The US could remove the missiles, and send ground troops instead, maybe an armoured division or so.
So, everyone's a winner :)

Except me, an American taxpayer who has to pay for that division.

I still say we pull out of everywhere and only respond when asked by the UN.

When asking, please wire transfer the funds in advance or include an American Express card number. We'll give you a variety of billing options. Per troop, bomb, casualty, or a one time fee to accomplish a specific goal.

[Bewolf]

Actually I've had quite a good idea what to do with Poland:
The US could remove the missiles, and send ground troops instead, maybe an armoured division or so.
Maybe the remaining army forces in Germany.
This would have benefits for all involved:
- Russia feels threatened by the missile shield, but does not need to fear a few Abrams rumbling through the middle of polish nowhere. You can't march on Moscow with a division.
- Russia's "Stong!11!!" faction like Zhirinovsky could ramble endlessly how quickly Russia could wipe out these troops
- Russian army would have some justification for new toys
- Poland would actually have some genuine US protection instead of just installing a few bull's eyes on their territory
- Polish army would benefit from training
- GIs could enjoy polish vodka, girls and cuisine (ok, maybe not :D)
- rural polish communities would benefit from development like german rural communities did in the cold war

So, everyone's a winner :)

One problem with that. The US can't justify their deployment of troops into Poland with a North Korean or Iranian threat. They'd have to develop some very convincing reasons first, else the whole game will repeat.

[McBeck]

And as said before, we have no constitutional obligation to defend you or your interests.Right. Are you a part of Nato?
NATO is not a part of our Constitution. ;) And Russia need not go to war to exert alot of influence and pressure over your security and economic interests. I don't believe an Obama administration will do anything on your behalf.
I know NATO is not a part of you constitution - if it were, we would be a part of the US. My point is, that you DO have obligations to defend us.

[Christopher Snow]

And as said before, we have no constitutional obligation to defend you or your interests.Right. Are you a part of Nato?
NATO is not a part of our Constitution. ;) And Russia need not go to war to exert alot of influence and pressure over your security and economic interests. I don't believe an Obama administration will do anything on your behalf. I know NATO is not a part of you constitution - if it were, we would be a part of the US. My point is, that you DO have obligations to defend us.

I wouldn't count on it.

You should make backup plans, just in case we decide we DON'T have any such obligations.


CS

[McBeck]

And as said before, we have no constitutional obligation to defend you or your interests.Right. Are you a part of Nato?
NATO is not a part of our Constitution. ;) And Russia need not go to war to exert alot of influence and pressure over your security and economic interests. I don't believe an Obama administration will do anything on your behalf. I know NATO is not a part of you constitution - if it were, we would be a part of the US. My point is, that you DO have obligations to defend us.
I wouldn't count on it.

You should make backup plans, just in case we decide we DON'T have any such obligations.


CS
Actully I dont count on it, Im just pointing out that there ARE obligations. Weather or not the US choose to honor those obligations is a whole other matter.

[Christopher Snow]

And as said before, we have no constitutional obligation to defend you or your interests.Right. Are you a part of Nato?
NATO is not a part of our Constitution. ;) And Russia need not go to war to exert alot of influence and pressure over your security and economic interests. I don't believe an Obama administration will do anything on your behalf. I know NATO is not a part of you constitution - if it were, we would be a part of the US. My point is, that you DO have obligations to defend us.
I wouldn't count on it.

You should make backup plans, just in case we decide we DON'T have any such obligations.

CS Actully I dont count on it, Im just pointing out that there ARE obligations. Weather or not the US choose to honor those obligations is a whole other matter.

Ok, Fair enough.

Consider also (and this would have been true regardless of which nominee were elected) the US might simply not be ABLE to fufill it's supposed obligations to support you, in any case..

A more frightening^...but perhaps even more realistic...thought.

In my view, we probably CAN'T help you, regardless of what the Russians decide to do, in any case. We are simply stretched too thin now (and as of Tuesday, I suspect morale among our forces has gone right off the deep end).

[I would be surprised if one in twenty members of our armed forces were still seriously considering re-enlistment just three days later.]

I don't think we can help you using conventional forces in any case--our military personnel are now so discouraged (I do suspect we'll see them leaving in droves in the very near future), that it will necessary to implement a military draft, very soon now, just in order to support even our present levels of force strengths (and these meager levels are still probably inadequate to support you, if it comes to a need for significant defence any time in the near future).

In our case, we can still fall back onto that "civilian militia" as a final backup, should the **** hit the fan over here.

But that won't help you any over there.


CS

[McBeck]

And as said before, we have no constitutional obligation to defend you or your interests.Right. Are you a part of Nato?
NATO is not a part of our Constitution. ;) And Russia need not go to war to exert alot of influence and pressure over your security and economic interests. I don't believe an Obama administration will do anything on your behalf. I know NATO is not a part of you constitution - if it were, we would be a part of the US. My point is, that you DO have obligations to defend us.
I wouldn't count on it.

You should make backup plans, just in case we decide we DON'T have any such obligations.


CS Actully I dont count on it, Im just pointing out that there ARE obligations. Weather or not the US choose to honor those obligations is a whole other matter.
Ok, Fair enough.

Consider also (and this would have been true regardless of which nominee were elected) the US might not be ABLE to fufill it's supposed obligations.

A more frightening...and perhaps even more realistic...thought.


CSGranted - thats true and if we turn the plates the oposite could be true too.
In my book, what counts is what you choose to do and that is based on what options you have.

[Christopher Snow]

And as said before, we have no constitutional obligation to defend you or your interests.Right. Are you a part of Nato?
NATO is not a part of our Constitution. ;) And Russia need not go to war to exert alot of influence and pressure over your security and economic interests. I don't believe an Obama administration will do anything on your behalf. I know NATO is not a part of you constitution - if it were, we would be a part of the US. My point is, that you DO have obligations to defend us.
I wouldn't count on it.

You should make backup plans, just in case we decide we DON'T have any such obligations.


CS Actully I dont count on it, Im just pointing out that there ARE obligations. Weather or not the US choose to honor those obligations is a whole other matter.
Ok, Fair enough.

Consider also (and this would have been true regardless of which nominee were elected) the US might not be ABLE to fufill it's supposed obligations.

A more frightening...and perhaps even more realistic...thought.


CSGranted - thats true and if we turn the plates the oposite could be true too.
In my book, what counts is what you choose to do and that is based on what options you have.
Well, I doubt that anyone in the US has really ever entertained the idea that the plates could be turned the opposite way (and then see the rest of NATO step up to defend US, instead of the other way round).

That sort of fantasy was never more than a mere pipe-dream, and i seriously doubt if even a left-wing Democrat over here would have ever expected to see it happen in real-life.

So I do agree that what counts is what WE choose to do if we are called upon to defend you (and not what you...or the rest of the EU...might have done had it been you who were called upon to stand beside, and in support of US).

<cough 9-11 cough>

When it happens, I guess we will all find out.


CS

[Bewolf]

It already DID happen. Remember 911? The NATO defense case was called out back then. Why do you think are german and other european troops deployed in Afghanistan, eh? Fairy tale my a**. You guys are so rightous you completly ignore what is going on. It was Europe coming to your aid there, big time. You only ruined it with your attack on Iraq and the completle Ignorance from Bush towards the world. "if you are not with us you are against us" is not a way to maintain friendships. And now you dare to say "yeah, sorry, we won't help you?" in case of an emergency, no matter how unlikely is?

Sorry, if that is the attitude of most americans, then I have zero problems with you guys going into mole mode and never come back. It just underlines the impression the US made the last couple years. ME ME ME ME ME ME ME the rest go to hell!
Luckily your polititians now are smarter then this.

[PeriscopeDepth]

Sorry, if that is the attitude of most americans, then I have zero problems with you guys going into mole mode and never come back. It just underlines the impression the US made the last couple years. ME ME ME ME ME ME ME the rest go to hell!Luckily your polititians now are smarter then this. Don't mind poor Christopher. He's in a bad way. I don't think he's left the bomb shelter since the election. You must know, we in Amerika can only hope that there will still be a sky when we we look up come January now that that Al-Qaeda infiltrator made it into office. Gawd, it hasn't been this bad since the Soviets managed to get Agent Carterovich in back in '77. Or has it? I read on the Interwebs the other day Slick Willy was probably a ChiCom agent who had underwent a dangerous plastic surgery before his insertion.

:D

PD

Disclaimer: Sorry if I offended anybody. Serious political postings just aren't as much fun.

[McBeck]

And as said before, we have no constitutional obligation to defend you or your interests.Right. Are you a part of Nato?
NATO is not a part of our Constitution. ;) And Russia need not go to war to exert alot of influence and pressure over your security and economic interests. I don't believe an Obama administration will do anything on your behalf. I know NATO is not a part of you constitution - if it were, we would be a part of the US. My point is, that you DO have obligations to defend us.
I wouldn't count on it.

You should make backup plans, just in case we decide we DON'T have any such obligations.


CS Actully I dont count on it, Im just pointing out that there ARE obligations. Weather or not the US choose to honor those obligations is a whole other matter.
Ok, Fair enough.

Consider also (and this would have been true regardless of which nominee were elected) the US might not be ABLE to fufill it's supposed obligations.

A more frightening...and perhaps even more realistic...thought.


CSGranted - thats true and if we turn the plates the oposite could be true too.
In my book, what counts is what you choose to do and that is based on what options you have.
Well, I doubt that anyone in the US has really ever entertained the idea that the plates could be turned the opposite way (and then see the rest of NATO step up to defend US, instead of the other way round).

That sort of fantasy was never more than a mere pipe-dream, and i seriously doubt if even a left-wing Democrat over here would have ever expected to see it happen in real-life.

So I do agree that what counts is what WE choose to do if we are called upon to defend you (and not what you...or the rest of the EU...might have done had it been you who were called upon to stand beside, and in support of US).

<cough 9-11 cough>

When it happens, I guess we will all find out.


CS
Did you know that Denmark is a terrorist target now because of our support to you in Afghanistan and Iraq? We, and alot of other european countries, have supported you to the best of our abillities because of 9/11!!
You better step up if called upon! We have recently proved that we can/will...

[Bewolf]

Sorry, if that is the attitude of most americans, then I have zero problems with you guys going into mole mode and never come back. It just underlines the impression the US made the last couple years. ME ME ME ME ME ME ME the rest go to hell!Luckily your polititians now are smarter then this. Don't mind poor Christopher. He's in a bad way. I don't think he's left the bomb shelter since the election. You must know, we in Amerika can only hope that there will still be a sky when we we look up come January now that that Al-Qaeda infiltrator made it into office. Gawd, it hasn't been this bad since the Soviets managed to get Agent Carterovich in back in '77. Or has it? I read on the Interwebs the other day Slick Willy was probably a ChiCom agent who had underwent a dangerous plastic surgery before his insertion.

:D

PD

Disclaimer: Sorry if I offended anybody. Serious political postings just aren't as much fun.

*lol* kay, touché. but darn, why must it always "these" kind of ppl beeing the most vocal ones and thus making up most of the impressions of one country?

[August]

Did you know that Denmark is a terrorist target now because of our support to you in Afghanistan and Iraq? We, and alot of other european countries, have supported you to the best of our abillities because of 9/11!!
You better step up if called upon! We have recently proved that we can/will...

Oh c'mon, you're saying that your newspapers published those anti-muhammed cartoons in support of our efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq?

[Konovalov]

Did you know that Denmark is a terrorist target now because of our support to you in Afghanistan and Iraq? We, and alot of other european countries, have supported you to the best of our abillities because of 9/11!!
You better step up if called upon! We have recently proved that we can/will...

Oh c'mon, you're saying that your newspapers published those anti-muhammed cartoons in support of our efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq?
Sorry but hasn't Denmark sent troops to both Iraq and Afghanistan? Wouldn't he be referring to that mentioned support for the US post 9/11 rather than what you have suggested? :-?

[August]

Did you know that Denmark is a terrorist target now because of our support to you in Afghanistan and Iraq? We, and alot of other european countries, have supported you to the best of our abillities because of 9/11!!
You better step up if called upon! We have recently proved that we can/will...
Oh c'mon, you're saying that your newspapers published those anti-muhammed cartoons in support of our efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq? Sorry but hasn't Denmark sent troops to both Iraq and Afghanistan? Wouldn't he be referring to that mentioned support for the US post 9/11 rather than what you have suggested? :-?

The only threats that have been made against Denmark that i know of were the huge anti-Dane rallies all over the middle east that were over the cartoon flap. Now i'm not disparaging Denmarks coalition military commitments but i'd say if Denmark itself is threatened it's mainly because of the cartoons, not their soldiers overseas.

[McBeck]

Did you know that Denmark is a terrorist target now because of our support to you in Afghanistan and Iraq? We, and alot of other european countries, have supported you to the best of our abillities because of 9/11!!
You better step up if called upon! We have recently proved that we can/will...
Oh c'mon, you're saying that your newspapers published those anti-muhammed cartoons in support of our efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq? Sorry but hasn't Denmark sent troops to both Iraq and Afghanistan? Wouldn't he be referring to that mentioned support for the US post 9/11 rather than what you have suggested? :-?
The only threats that have been made against Denmark that i know of were the huge anti-Dane rallies all over the middle east that were over the cartoon flap. Now i'm not disparaging Denmarks coalition military commitments but i'd say if Denmark itself is threatened it's mainly because of the cartoons, not their soldiers overseas. Wrong...Denmark was a target before the cartoons! The cartoons just made it worse and became a world news.
Are you really trying to convince me that you would know more about what happens in/to Denmark than me?

[August]

Did you know that Denmark is a terrorist target now because of our support to you in Afghanistan and Iraq? We, and alot of other european countries, have supported you to the best of our abillities because of 9/11!!
You better step up if called upon! We have recently proved that we can/will...
Oh c'mon, you're saying that your newspapers published those anti-muhammed cartoons in support of our efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq? Sorry but hasn't Denmark sent troops to both Iraq and Afghanistan? Wouldn't he be referring to that mentioned support for the US post 9/11 rather than what you have suggested? :-?
The only threats that have been made against Denmark that i know of were the huge anti-Dane rallies all over the middle east that were over the cartoon flap. Now i'm not disparaging Denmarks coalition military commitments but i'd say if Denmark itself is threatened it's mainly because of the cartoons, not their soldiers overseas. Wrong...Denmark was a target before the cartoons! The cartoons just made it worse and became a world news.
Are you really trying to convince me that you would know more about what happens in/to Denmark than me?

I'm not trying to convince you of anything. Exactly what were the these pre-cartoon threats in the form of and from who?

[PeriscopeDepth]

"My terrorism threats are bigger than yours!" :lol:

Is there a country in the world that doesn't face threats from terrorism (a tactic, not an entity)? This went for Denmark before the cartoons were published, mostly I'm sure for Danish military support of operations in Afghanistan since 2001. Of course the threat of attacks increased after the cartoons being published. To say there was no threat before the publishing of the cartoons is ridiculous. It simply wasn't as big.

PD

[McBeck]

"My terrorism threats are bigger than yours!" :lol:

Is there a country in the world that doesn't face threats from terrorism (a tactic, not an entity)? This went for Denmark before the cartoons were published, mostly I'm sure for Danish military support of operations in Afghanistan since 2001. Of course the threat of attacks increased after the cartoons being published. To say there was no threat before the publishing of the cartoons is ridiculous. It simply wasn't as big.

PDYes sir - thats correct :) I just get ticked off when its stated that did not contribute

[Sea Demon]

Actully I dont count on it, Im just pointing out that there ARE obligations. Weather or not the US choose to honor those obligations is a whole other matter.

Let me put it another way. I have always known that if NATO were to dissolve, it would always be done by a Democrat administration not interested in confrontation at any level. Not even to defend allies or our overseas interests. It would be a slow and measured dissolution. Probably in the face of a measured growth in the threat environment. We Republicans largely see our own security tied to yours. If you have protection of your homes and nations from military and uncommon threats, than we do as well. Our liberal Democrats in our country believe that there are either no threats, or we are at fault for those elements which threaten our lives and interests. And their solutions always come down to disarming ourselves in the face of these threats. There is not an example in reverse. Look at Obama's current "change.gov" website. He's already speaking of disarming our nuclear deterrent while the Russians are moving missiles to your borders. This is why I think alot of Europeans are kind of short-sighted to have supported an Obama Presidency with such a ferocious zeal. Your own future security is at risk, and the balance of power in your part of the world is changing even today very quickly. NATO alliance or not, we've just elected an administration not likely to be able or interested confronting these types of challenges. His own new website and past comments on military spending and usage hints at that. And with a Democrat led Congress who are now proposing massive cuts in military spending (at least 25% so far), it's assured we won't be in any position to support your interests or security in any way. You guys just may come to regret our choice.