Russia Making Threats Over Missle Shield

[charlietwo]

Just saw this headline on drudgereport -- http://www.breitbart.com/article.php...show_article=1

I'm a young pup still, with not much world experience, but my gut tells me that this is very bad business. My knowledge of history tells me that this was a very big domino that is falling towards WW III. I'm very interested to hear what my elder brothers have to say about this.

[The Reaper]

I say "woof-woof".

The missile shield threatens Russia in no way. Even after built, they can throw way more missiles than we can shoot down, and it only takes a few to make a big impression.

My personal belief is that the quality of the Russian military is not all it is cracked up to be, and that the Poles are not Georgia. I suspect that if we flew air cover and provided CAS, the Poles could hold their own, especially since the Russians are short on strategic projection, and would have to come through Lithuania, Belarus, or the Ukraine, none of which are likely to look upon this favorably.

Just my .02, YMMV.

TR

[Red Flag 1]

Originally Posted by The Reaper

I say "woof-woof".

The missile shield threatens Russia in no way. Even after built, they can throw way more missiles than we can shoot down, and it only takes a few to make a big impression.

My personal belief is that the quality of the Russian military is not all it is cracked up to be, and that the Poles are not Georgia. I suspect that if we flew air cover and provided CAS, the Poles could hold their own, especially since the Russians are short on strategic projection, and would have to come through Lithuania, Belarus, or the Ukraine, none of which are likely to look upon this favorably.

Just my .02, YMMV.

TR

Air Force Magazine did an article a few months ago about the current Russian Military. A rather large amount of the Russian economy is being put into their military, that is just money. There is virtually no senior NCO leadership in the Russian military. Officer Corp is in about the same shape. Corruption is a huge factor in the bulk of the Russian military. Money can buy technology, but can not buy leadership or credability. Russian military is rebuilding but, not seen very effective at this time.

Is current Georgia "event" a training exercise for the Russian Military?

With all the looting reported, it seems coruption within the Russian military is still a problem.



RF 1

[SF_BHT]

They have been stealing windows. Guess they need some for their base back home......

[afchic]

I have to agree with Reaper. The missile shield is in no way a threat to them. But that being said, they have wanted back on the international scene for quite a while, and Georgia gave them the opportunity to do it. The missile shield issue will be sure to keep them in the news for some time to come.

I for one do not think we are in any way close to a WWIII scenario with the Russians. They have too much to loose. And I personally think we are past the point in time where two states such as Russia and the US are going to start lobbing nukes at each other. I can see other states threatening the use of nukes, but not us or the Russians.

As for the Russian military, they have a long way to go before they can be anywhere close to "superpower" status. I read an article yesterday that said their army is in such a shambles they were contracting Chechens to fight in Georgia.

[nmap]

Russia mentions that its response might be beyond diplomacy, and that could mean military action.

What if it means something different? Perhaps it means economic action.

Did Russia attack Georgia because of South Ossetia? Or might it be the BTC pipeline? Because if Russia got control of that 1,100 mile long pipeline, it would give them additional control over the flow of oil and natural gas to Europe.

Isn't it interesting that Poland wants to create a new LNG port? Link

If one speculates that the availability of oil might be in decline, then Russia may be positioning itself for both diplomatic and economic gains by controlling a big part of the flow to Europe.

[nmap]

Originally Posted by afchic

I read an article yesterday that said their army is in such a shambles they were contracting Chechens to fight in Georgia.

According to my very limited understanding, the Chechen mercenaries are renowned for their brutality. Perhaps the goal is to intimidate and cow the local population, while maintaining the ability to deny any involvement by Russian forces.

The country might then be less willing to risk Russian anger; they might distance themselves from the West, and seek to placate Russia. This would seem to work to a Russian advantage.

[Richard]

This has been going on for several years. One has to remember that Russia's defense of the Rodina (Motherland) is based on the historical precedents of trading space for time...and anything encroaching upon their space (including any barrior space between them and Germany--and now NATO) is suspect to them. Period. Do we have any Russian FAOs on this site who could expound upon this?

As a former 18A/48E, we understood that this was a fact, Jack, and always a point to consider when dealing with the Soviets! Why would we think the "new and improved" Russian mentality was any different?

Richard's $.02

[FldDoc]

MOSCOW (AP) - Russia says its response to the further development of a U.S. missile shield in Poland will go beyond diplomacy.

Russia’s Foreign Ministry issued a statement saying the U.S. missile shield plans are clearly aimed at weakening Russia.

My take on this has always been from the cold war perspective because I think that is where their minds are still at. The "Missile Shield" would give us opportunity for first strike with retaliation being thwarted from Russia. This thinking is so 1980's but that's where they want to be.
I don't think they have the ability to do anything directly to us, but they sure can lend some talent and technology to our current enemies as well as do an economic job on us via the pipe line.
Could you imagine seeing Mig-29's over the skies in afghanistan being flown by a caveman? I think our flyboys might actually enjoy it.

[charlietwo]

Originally Posted by The Reaper

I say "woof-woof".

The missile shield threatens Russia in no way. Even after built, they can throw way more missiles than we can shoot down, and it only takes a few to make a big impression.

My personal belief is that the quality of the Russian military is not all it is cracked up to be, and that the Poles are not Georgia. I suspect that if we flew air cover and provided CAS, the Poles could hold their own, especially since the Russians are short on strategic projection, and would have to come through Lithuania, Belarus, or the Ukraine, none of which are likely to look upon this favorably.

Just my .02, YMMV.

TR

The bluster is obvious, particularly when they're upset about anti-ballistic missile shields, as if they are a direct threat. War gaming this in my head, a major conflict between Russia and the West could shake up the civilizational fault line that runs through the nations of NATO. If key players in Eastern Europe buckle under the weight of Russia's chest-pounding, a relatively solid line could be drawn over loyalties. Also, I highly doubt the major players in Western Europe are willing to harden up any time soon in the face of the Russian bear. In addition, it appears as if Russia is already trying to solidify alliances abroad (i.e. Syria). If they can capitalize or intensify on the West's conflict with Islam to any degree, and come to terms with China as any sort of ally (or even a neutral state), it would definitely strengthen their position in the region. As well as give them more time to utilize their resources to bolster their military. I believe Red Flag 1 is dead on with his assessment of their floundering military, from what I've seen and read.

Also, I definitely agree with nmap that the oil resource is a major aspect of this current situation in Georgia. If it was not a valuable piece of land, they wouldn't risk so much over it. The same could be said for the West's interest, or more specifically, Western Europe. In regards to the Chechens, if the Russian's wanted to, they could fight proxy wars using the Islamists all over their western front, if for nothing else than to cause problems within their NATO neighbors backyards. Just send some material and some advisors, and you have yourself a good old fashioned guerrilla war.

I didn't grow up during the cold war, so all of my knowledge is whatever history I've scoured in my days. I haven't really seen much of the Russian mentality, so I suppose I'm grasping at straws with my ramblings I'm enjoying this discussion greatly, however. Thanks all!

[Jack Moroney (RIP)]

Originally Posted by Richard

One has to remember that Russia's defense of the Rodina (Motherland) is based on the historical precedents of trading space for time...and anything encroaching upon their space (including any barrior space between them and Germany--and now NATO) is suspect to them.

Absolutely. The Russian psyche has always been part of this equation and I would not be surprised if the leadership is not playing to that part of its population to quell the discontent of all the money being poured into the military for the defense of the motherland while ignoring more pressing social problems at home. I look at this adventure in Georgia more like a recon by fire to see exactly what the west a very weak EU and deteriorating NATO would do. Russia does not need to exercise its military force to bring EU to its knees, they are heavily engaged in Europe's energy profile and that alone will dampen any adventure by the fledgling EU military. Right now I would not be surprised to find out that France is building yet another Arc d' Triumph for the Russians to march under when Europe folds. There is also another aspect for mother Russia. They have a great concern with all the Muslim states along their southern border and a solid foot hold in the Cacusus will give them another avenue of approach to keep a lid on the pending surge of fanatics looking for revenge and expansion of the word of the one true god. I think that mother Russia is also( although I may be giving that little commie, judo, KGB freak Putin too much credit) looking at a way to dismantle both NATO and the EU. Right now the EU is trying to create its own military arm and the budgeting process for membership in the EU ties the amount of money that countries can spend in order to manage inflation and other aspects of the common good. Countries within the EU just cannot come up with the bucks to build a military force with those limitations without sharing the burden amoung each country to provide some aspect of the "force" and I think Russia is actually hoping for a rise in nationalistic feelings within the various members that will cause a break down of the PanEuropa dream which will allow Russia to concentrate on those targeted countries as they tell the EU to go pound truffles because their own national identities and pride are threatened by their collective impotency and they will remove themselves from the EU. If that happens, they will once again have the buffer of expendable states between mother Russia and the west and all will be good again in Red Square. Just my opinion.

[ZonieDiver]

Originally Posted by Jack Moroney

Absolutely. The Russian psyche has always been part of this equation and I would not be surprised if the leadership is not playing to that part of its population to quell the discontent of all the money being poured into the military for the defense of the motherland while ignoring more pressing social problems at home. I look at this adventure in Georgia more like a recon by fire to see exactly what the west a very weak EU and deteriorating NATO would do. Russia does not need to exercise its military force to bring EU to its knees, they are heavily engaged in Europe's energy profile and that alone will dampen any adventure by the fledgling EU military. Right now I would not be surprised to find out that France is building yet another Arc d' Triumph for the Russians to march under when Europe folds. There is also another aspect for mother Russia. They have a great concern with all the Muslim states along their southern border and a solid foot hold in the Cacusus will give them another avenue of approach to keep a lid on the pending surge of fanatics looking for revenge and expansion of the word of the one true god. I think that mother Russia is also( although I may be giving that little commie, judo, KGB freak Putin too much credit) looking at a way to dismantle both NATO and the EU. Right now the EU is trying to create its own military arm and the budgeting process for membership in the EU ties the amount of money that countries can spend in order to manage inflation and other aspects of the common good. Countries within the EU just cannot come up with the bucks to build a military force with those limitations without sharing the burden amoung each country to provide some aspect of the "force" and I think Russia is actually hoping for a rise in nationalistic feelings within the various members that will cause a break down of the PanEuropa dream which will allow Russia to concentrate on those targeted countries as they tell the EU to go pound truffles because their own national identities and pride are threatened by their collective impotency and they will remove themselves from the EU. If that happens, they will once again have the buffer of expendable states between mother Russia and the west and all will be good again in Red Square. Just my opinion.

Col M, sir, you should write a book (or three)! I'd buy 'em!

[Razor]

Originally Posted by FldDoc

The "Missile Shield" would give us opportunity for first strike with retaliation being thwarted from Russia.

Someday, maybe, perhaps, with a buttload more money...but not right now.

[Richard]

COL Moroney is 'spot on' IMO.

But we also must remember that Russia remains an enigma not only to us, but to the Europeans who struggle with the idea that a country which produces such great literature, music, ballet, poetry, etc can be so corrupt and industrially inefficient, and cannot even safely manage its own capitol's airport (which is outsourced to a German firm) to Western standards. And even though Russia has concerns over the many splinter states now surrounding its borders, it still 'fears' NATO-- which has been offering 'membership' to so many of the USSR's former satellite republics and buffer states--to the point that it retains several hundred ICBMs targeting Central Europe.

As for the EU's fledgling 'military' arm--remember that their first 'test' was to take care of the Balkans ("This is a matter which can best be handled by Europeans") while we deployed to GW1...and we know the result of that French led effort. I was reading a recent article in Der Spiegel about this very issue and little has changed since then for the EU--which does not bode well for us if we continue to perceive our strategic position regarding NATO to be of great importance in today's world and continue to have to deal with fledgling democracies who seek to join NATO while blatantly 'teasing' the Russian Bear with their new found 'Big Brothers' standing behind them.

Here's a good piece which offers a pretty solid broader picture of recent (within the last decade) events by one columnist I read with regularity for his 'classical' world view of events--Victor Davis Hanson.

Richard

Brave Old World
by Victor Davis Hanson

Russia invades Georgia. China jails dissidents. China and India pollute at levels previously unimaginable. Gulf monarchies make trillions from jacked-up oil prices. Islamic terrorists keep car bombing. Meanwhile, Europe offers moral lectures, while Japan and South Korea shrug and watch — all in a globalized world that tunes into the Olympics each night from Beijing.

"Citizens of the world" were supposed to share, in relative harmony, our new "Planet Earth," which was to have followed from an interconnected system of free trade, instantaneous electronic communications, civilized diplomacy and shared consumer capitalism.

But was that ever quite true?

In reality, to the extent globalism worked, it followed from three unspoken assumptions:

First, the U.S. economy would keep importing goods from abroad to drive international economic growth.

Second, the U.S. military would keep the sea-lanes open, and trade and travel protected. After the past destruction of fascism and global communism, the Americans, as global sheriff, would continue to deal with the occasional menace like a Muammar al-Gaddafi, Slobodan Milosevic, Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, Kim Jong-il or the Taliban.

Third, America would ignore ankle-biting allies and remain engaged with the world — like a good, nurturing mom who at times must put up with the petulance of dependent teenagers.

But there have been a number of indications recently that globalization may soon lose its American parent, who is tiring, both materially and psychologically.

The United States may be the most free, stable and meritocratic nation in the world, but its resources and patience are not unlimited. Currently, it pays more than a half trillion dollars per year to import $115-a-barrel oil that is often pumped at a cost of about $5.

The Chinese, Japanese and Europeans hold trillions of dollars in U.S. bonds — the result of massive trade deficits. The American dollar is at historic lows. We are piling up staggering national debt. Over 12 million live here illegally and freely transfer more than $50 billion annually to Mexico and Latin America.

Our military, after deposing Milosevic, the Taliban and Saddam, is tired. And Americans are increasingly becoming more sensitive to the cheap criticism of global moralists.

But as the United States turns ever so slightly inward, the new globalized world will revert to a far poorer — and more dangerous — place.

Liberals like presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama speak out against new free trade agreements and want existing accords like NAFTA readjusted. More and more Americans are furious at the costs of illegal immigration — and are moving to stop it. The foreign remittances that help prop up Mexico and Latin America are threatened by any change in America's immigration attitude.

Meanwhile, the hypocrisy becomes harder to take. After all, it is easy for self-appointed global moralists to complain that terrorists don't enjoy Miranda rights at Guantanamo, but it would be hard to do much about the Russian military invading Georgia's democracy and bombing its cities.

Al Gore crisscrosses the country, pontificating about Americans' carbon footprints. But he could do far better to fly to China to convince them not to open 500 new coal-burning power plants.

It has been chic to chant "No blood for oil" about Iraq's petroleum — petroleum that, in fact, is now administered by a constitutional republic. But such sloganeering would be better directed at China's sweetheart oil deals with Sudan that enable the mass murdering in Darfur.

Due to climbing prices and high government taxes, gasoline consumption is declining in the West, but its use is rising in other places, where it is either untaxed or subsidized.

So, what a richer but more critical world has forgotten is that in large part America was the model, not the villain — and that postwar globalization was always a form of engaged Americanization that enriched and protected billions.

Yet globalization, in all its manifestations, will run out of steam the moment we tire of fueling it, as the world returns instead to the mindset of the 1930s — with protectionist tariffs; weak, disarmed democracies; an isolationist America; predatory dictatorships; and a demoralized gloom-and-doom Western elite.

If America adopts the protectionist trade policies of Japan or China, global profits plummet. If our armed forces follow the European lead of demilitarization and inaction, rogue states advance. If we were to treat the environment as do China and India, the world would become quickly a lost cause.

If we flee Iraq and call off the war on terror, Islamic jihadists will regroup, not disband. And when the Russians attack the next democracy, they won't listen to the United Nations, the European Union or Michael Moore.

Brace yourself — we may be on our way back to an old world, where the strong do as they will, and the weak suffer as they must.

[Richard]

These are good.

Richard