Is Russia's recent warning about a potential Cold War 2.0 a cause for concern?

[Anttech]

the new USSR (Russia) would give them a total run for their money

The "new ussr" lol... What are you trying to say by making such a statement?

Perhaps you need to brush up on your Geography and History, the USSR fell apart in the 90's in fact the rot started in the 80's.

http://europa.eu/abc/maps/index_en.htm <--- See how most of the ex-USSR countries are now part of the EU?

Yes there is loads of money in Russia, but its not the USSR nor will it ever be again.

 

[Anttech]

We've gone through some of the numbers before. Here are some more (most recent, 2005): http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/mo-budget.htm The US defense budget is on the order of $500 billion. So if Russia increases theirs by 20 times, it'll be almost as big as ours, while consuming 1/4 of the country's GDP.

Russia is not in a position to start an arms race.

Neither are you, unless of course you want to completely wreck your economy.

 

[Art]

Heh - the part you highlighted is more saying, not "doing". What are they doing that should make us notice? Testing an ICBM? That's it? That's not an arms race. If it were, we'd be in one with North Korea too.

Let's see now, Russian President Putin says Russia is in an arms race with the USA whereas Russ says he is wrong and they are not. Mmmm on reflection I think I'll trust Putin's analysis of Russia's current military activity and motivations .

btw you seem to be confusing an arms race with a competition to see who can spend the most. As evidenced by Iraq there is little correlation between money spent and military success. I think you should look up the definition of 'arms race'. You will find 'who spends the most' does not form a part of the definition it's more action - reaction. Specifically in this instance the Russians are developing counter measures to the US anti-missile system.

 

[drankin]

Should we bomb them now or wait until they have more nukes?

 

[Art]

Should we bomb them now or wait until they have more nukes?

I think you will find that just as before the break up of the USSR the Russians already have enough nukes to wipe out the planet several times over.

 

[drankin]

I think you will find that just as before the break up of the USSR the Russians already have enough nukes to wipe out the planet several times over.

That's no fun. Cold wars are boring.

My question would have to be, "How is the US a threat to Russia?". The USSR broke up, we weren't hostile, we didn't go in and physically take anything over (as far as I know, anyway). We didn't kick them while they were down.

I'm sure Russia still has a substantial arsenal but I'd really wonder how well it has been maintained. Doesn't the nuclear material have to regularly replenished?

 

[devil-fire]

Missile Wars

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/missile/view/

is this the quote you are saying i ripped off? "we have many many more things to worry about then the vary unlikely probability of a missile from rouge state coming across the horizon. i mean if we're going to start allocating resources, let start thinking about how we're going to control or monitor all those tens of thousands of con-x containers that come into the United States on cargo ships every day, tens of thousands. all you have to do is build a nuclear device with a remote control trigger on it and when that con-x container gets in lower manhattan, you set it off. how do you protect against that?"- gen. eugene habiger, cmndr, strategic command 96-98. this isn't quite what i was talking about. he's talking about how the ports are vulnerable whereas i was talking about how russia would not necessarily need a budget for defense comparable to that of the usa to be able to deliver a nuclear weapon past the defense shield because the ports are vulnerable. mind you, a 5 year old episode of frontline is not the only reason to think port security is low.

the frontline link is a great piece of information on how ineffective the missile defense shield was as of 2002. "if the north koreans were to launch one missile, after giving you a weeks notice of where they were going to launch that one missile from and also informing you that there would be no decoys, just one missile. after sixty billion dollars, what is the probability that you could shoot that one missile down? zero as of today. however, if i might expand on that, if we go according to our current plan by the year 2004 it would be vary much higher then zero."

 

[devil-fire]

My question would have to be, "How is the US a threat to Russia?". The USSR broke up, we weren't hostile, ...We didn't kick them while they were down.

do you mean a threat today? or during the cold war, just before the ussr broke up? if you mean the later, then the usa and ussr were quite hostile. the invasion of afghanistan by the ussr was extremely costly to the ussr while it was in a weakening condition because the usa gave anti-aircraft and anti-tank weapons to the afghanistan fighters at a time when the ussr forces were vary dependent on aircraft and tanks.

if russia was supplying weapons that could effectively take out abram tanks and american air support, you could bet the usa would start taking an extremely hostile stance with russia

 

[drankin]

I'm talking after the break up. Is/should Russia be threatened by the US now? Is Russia's defensive posture justified? Or is it a case of Russia trying to regain world power status. Which brings another question, do we want them to regain that status?

 

[JasonRox]

Why would any country even attempt going at war with the US or try to bully the US around? It would be a waste of time and effort and money since the US is driving itself into bankruptcy. The US will be broke in the not so distant future.

 

[devil-fire]

I'm talking after the break up. Is/should Russia be threatened by the US now? Is Russia's defensive posture justified? Or is it a case of Russia trying to regain world power status. Which brings another question, do we want them to regain that status?

russia is not terribly threatened by the us at the moment, but there is the usual 'american interests are not russian interests' involved with regional politics that is always going on.

russia's posturing isn't defensive, its vary much in the "offensive" category in my view. i think it should be expected though. as soon as any offensive weapon becomes moot, it needs an upgrade and it looks like this is what is happening. but mind you, the missile shield isn't vary effective by most accounts so the russian missile arsenal is still vary far from moot in practice. i think the idea here really is to tell anyone who feels they might be protected from russia by the shield (eastern europe let's say) that infact, russia is still vary much in control if they are still breathing tomorrow.

russia is always trying to increase their regional and global influence, aka. become a global super power. this can also be said for china, india, pakistan, britain, france, venezuela, or many other nations. this is just a characteristic that is fairly common among countries. naturally any american would not like it if people in europe sooner listening to russia then america, but i don't think this is going to happen vary soon. this whole thing with missile shields and missiles that get through shields isn't terribly important to american interests. not as important as let's say what iran agrees to do in regards to iraq.

 

[momentum_waves]

We've gone through some of the numbers before. Here are some more (most recent, 2005): http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/mo-budget.htm The US defense budget is on the order of $500 billion. So if Russia increases theirs by 20 times, it'll be almost as big as ours, while consuming 1/4 of the country's GDP.

Russia is not in a position to start an arms race.

Russ, have you had the opportunity to visit Russia?

I've been a few times on business, with one prolonged stay in Siberia - in Winter. I came away with a clear understanding of a nation that has an enormous amount of wealth, should it decide to use it. It also has a cultural heritage of which many countries would be envious. Contrast this against US(S)A's brief presence as a nation.

Many of the foremost thinkers in Mathematics & Physics originate from, or are
still resident in, Russia & the former USSR. Their engineers can often develop excellent concepts on a budget that would be considered paltry in US(S)A eyes. I have witnessed some pretty remarkable engineering.

It would be a gross mistake to underestimate Russia at this point in time. Arrogance causes blindness.

 

[drankin]

Russ, have you had the opportunity to visit Russia?

I've been a few times on business, with one prolonged stay in Siberia - in Winter. I came away with a clear understanding of a nation that has an enormous amount of wealth, should it decide to use it. It also has a cultural heritage of which many countries would be envious. Contrast this against US(S)A's brief presence as a nation.

Many of the foremost thinkers in Mathematics & Physics originate from, or are
still resident in, Russia & the former USSR. Their engineers can often develop excellent concepts on a budget that would be considered paltry in US(S)A eyes. I have witnessed some pretty remarkable engineering.

It would be a gross mistake to underestimate Russia at this point in time. Arrogance causes blindness.

So, what's their problem?

 

[russ_watters]

Neither are you, unless of course you want to completely wreck your economy.

When did I say I wanted one?

Regardless, if we did, we're in pretty much the same place as we were when the Cold War ended. Russia, on the other hand, is not. Like I said before, if they want an arms race and we decide to join, we'll have to give them a decade or two of a head start before we join, just to let them catch up.

 

[russ_watters]

Let's see now, Russian President Putin says Russia is in an arms race with the USA whereas Russ says he is wrong and they are not. Mmmm on reflection I think I'll trust Putin's analysis of Russia's current military activity and motivations .

I suppose you trust 'lil Kim's too?

People like to talk, Art - especially politicians. It doesn't mean anything.

 

[russ_watters]

Russ, have you had the opportunity to visit Russia?

Lithuania - after the breakup. Nice country, nice people. They treated us Americans almost like rock-stars. I was with the Navy and the line to tour our ship was twice as long as the ship!

I came away with a clear understanding of a nation that has an enormous amount of wealth, should it decide to use it.

They certainly have a lot of potential mineral wealth. We talked about that already. Potential wealth isn't wealth and it takes a bit more than "decid[ing] to use it" to actually get it done.

It also has a cultural heritage of which many countries would be envious. Contrast this against US(S)A's brief presence as a nation.

Their cultural heritage is nice, but isn't relevant here. The country is only 15 years old in it's current form. Heck, the US was 12 when it had to scrap it's constitution and start over from scratch.

Russia has a long, long way to go before it becomes the stable, prosperous nation it should be. Perhaps in 30-50 years...

Many of the foremost thinkers in Mathematics & Physics originate from, or are
still resident in, Russia & the former USSR. Their engineers can often develop excellent concepts on a budget that would be considered paltry in US(S)A eyes. I have witnessed some pretty remarkable engineering.

Yes, that's true. But it doesn't have anything to do with this thread.

 

[momentum_waves]

It would be interesting to hear a Russian perspective on all of this bluster. As I said before. Arrogance causes blindness.

Give Russia a few years as it moves its economy upwards past the US. Then the shoe will be on the other foot, I imagine. The current US position tries to treat Russia with some level of disrespect. Perhaps this would have been acceptable 20 years ago, but since the Bush regime, the world has lost interest in much of what the US stood for. In general, it is now often seen to be an arrogant, ignorant bully super-power-wannabe.

Russia, on the other hand, has everything to gain. It seems to be re-capturing its past - it would not be wise to try discount its rich heritage & treat it as a immature nation - this is gross arrogance & unfortunately does tend to personify much of what the rest of the world sees in the US at the moment. Better to observe & learn, than bloviate. :-)

 

[drankin]

Give Russia a few years as it moves its economy upwards past the US.

Hey, more power to them. I hope the prosper and become a great nation once again (but more reasonable).

Why are you so anti-American? Are you American?

 

[momentum_waves]

^ I'm not an American. After Bush's recent antics, I would guess a few folks have become a little cynical at the ongoing arrogance of the US. I have a similar stance to most bullies.

I happen to think that the Russian people are treated with a certain amount of undeserved disrespect. They also suffered under the previous Soviet regime. It's a reasonably nice place. St. Petersburg & Yekaterinburg are very interesting places - it helps to put things in perspective.

I currently live in Asia, if that means anything. :-)

 

[Anttech]

When did I say I wanted one?

Regardless, if we did, we're in pretty much the same place as we were when the Cold War ended. Russia, on the other hand, is not. Like I said before, if they want an arms race and we decide to join, we'll have to give them a decade or two of a head start before we join, just to let them catch up.

When did I say you said you wanted one You are not in the same place as when the cold war ended, utter BS! During the cold war America had many friends, right now I am sad to say you are almost isolated.

 

[Anttech]

Their cultural heritage is nice, but isn't relevant here. The country is only 15 years old in it's current form. Heck, the US was 12 when it had to scrap it's constitution and start over from scratch.

Yet more bull ****. Russia has the longest uninterrupted empire in the world right now. Its not 15 years old...

 

[russ_watters]

Give Russia a few years as it moves its economy upwards past the US.

Honestly, I would love to see Russia getting their s--- together and becoming a viable 1st world nation. It should be possible, but unfortunately they are having a lot of trouble overcoming their past right now. I don't see them coming out of this funk for a few decades.

I happen to think that the Russian people are treated with a certain amount of undeserved disrespect. They also suffered under the previous Soviet regime. It's a reasonably nice place. St. Petersburg & Yekaterinburg are very interesting places - it helps to put things in perspective.

I don't think you have an accurate perception of peoples' feelings toward Russia here. One of the primary complaints we had against the USSR was the fact that it was an oppressive society, so we do have sympathy for what the Russian people are going through. But then sympathy can be viewed as arrogance too if people don't believe that it is sincere (and people choose not to). When I went to Lithuania, we also had St. Petersburg on our itinerary and I was very disappointed that that port visit got cancelled.

 

[russ_watters]

When did I say you said you wanted one

I really have no clue what you are talking about. Nothing you are saying here seems at all relevant to the thread. Unexplained one-liners are not very useful in a conversation like this. What is your point?

You are not in the same place as when the cold war ended, utter BS! During the cold war America had many friends, right now I am sad to say you are almost isolated.

What are you claiming here? Are you claiming that the US had active help in the Cold War and that help was an essential component of our performance? And are you claiming that that help no longer exists? If you are claiming these things, you'll need to provide arguments to substantiate them. Otherwise, that's just a useless one-liner. What is your point?

 

[Astronuc]

Yet more bull ****. Russia has the longest uninterrupted empire in the world right now. Its not 15 years old...

Actually, I believe China (currently People's Republic of China) is the oldest uninterrupted empire, if one is referring to interruptions from outside.

The history of China is told in traditional historical records that refer as far back as the Three sovereigns and five emperors about 5,000 years ago, supplemented by archaeological records dating to the 16th century BC. China is one of the world's oldest continuous civilizations. Turtle shells with markings reminiscent of ancient Chinese writing from the Shang Dynasty have been carbon dated to around 1500 BC. Chinese civilization originated with city-states in the Yellow River valley. 221 BC is the commonly accepted year when China became unified under a large kingdom or empire. Successive dynasties in Chinese history developed bureaucratic systems that enabled the Emperor of China to control the large territory.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_China

Empires of Russia and China have been rather fluid with peridically changing borders.

The history of Russia begins with that of the East Slavs, the ethnic group that eventually split into the Russians, Ukrainians, and Belarusians. The first East Slavic state, Kievan Rus', adopted Christianity from the Byzantine Empire in 988, beginning the synthesis of Byzantine and Slavic cultures that defined Russian culture for the next seven centuries. Kievan Rus' ultimately disintegrated as a state, leaving a number of states competing for claims to be the heirs to its civilization and dominant position.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Russia

Honestly, I would love to see Russia getting their s--- together and becoming a viable 1st world nation. It should be possible, but unfortunately they are having a lot of trouble overcoming their past right now. I don't see them coming out of this funk for a few decades.

I agree. They have some significant internal problems to overcome - mainly corruption of the political and economic systems. One of the major impediments in Russia is the lack of willingness of the federal and state/regional governments to enforce contracts. Without that stability, progress is undermined, and so is outside investment. The US and Eruopean economies have been remarkably successful simply because contracts do for the most part hold.

I have always been impressed with the endurance and perseverance displayed by those living in Russia and other former communist states.

 

[momentum_waves]

Honestly, I would love to see Russia getting their s--- together and becoming a viable 1st world nation. It should be possible, but unfortunately they are having a lot of trouble overcoming their past right now. I don't see them coming out of this funk for a few decades.

When did Russia cease being a 1st world nation?

What are the comparative economic growth figures (rates, GDP) for US & Russia?

 

[MeJennifer]

Let me get this right, A wants to place rockets on B near C. C responds that if A does that, it also will place rockets near B.

Now C is supposedly the agressor, A is the good guy and B is supposedly thankful.
What a world!

 

[Astronuc]

Let me get this right, A wants to place rockets on B near C. C responds that if A does that, it also will place rockets near B.

Now C is supposedly the agressor, A is the good guy and B is supposedly thankful.
What a world!

It's a bit more complicated than that. There are D, E, F, . . . . . involved.

It's more like A wants to place anti-missile systems in B near C to ostensibly protect against missiles from D, and perhaps E, F, . . .

Meanwhile C, which is neighboring B is a bit upset about having A's anti-missile systems on its borders. But then C is now planning to deploy anti-missile systems of its own. And perhaps A and C are also planning to deploy offensive missiles as well. Perhaps A and C are or have been aggressors, and perhaps A is one of the major agressors in the world with its military involvement in G and H, and covert activities elsewhere.

Yes - what a world we live in.

And we'll need more than 26 letters.

 

[momentum_waves]

^ Very good...

 

[Astronuc]

Reminds me of The Cat in the Hat Comes Back.

We need a Little Cat Z with his big Voooom to clean up the mess!


Even better is The Butter Battle Book, a satire on the cold war.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Butter_Battle_Book

 

[Anttech]

I really have no clue what you are talking about. Nothing you are saying here seems at all relevant to the thread. Unexplained one-liners are not very useful in a conversation like this. What is your point?

I would say the same to you, but I think claiming that nothing makes sense is more degrading to this thread than my one liners, which are and were answering your one liners.

What are you claiming here? Are you claiming that the US had active help in the Cold War and that help was an essential component of our performance? And are you claiming that that help no longer exists? If you are claiming these things, you'll need to provide arguments to substantiate them. Otherwise, that's just a useless one-liner. What is your point?

I read the what's your point the first time, there is no need to attempt to reinforce it by repeating it. You made a pointless and rediculas statement that you being america are in the same place you are now, as you were at the end of the clod war. You arent. you arent . Global politics has moved on, obviously, and your old *when the chips were down dependable alies in Europe* arent your allies to that extent, making your country more isolated than it has been for a very long time. That was my point, the point you seem to be making is that you single handedly defeated the great threat that was communism. Is that what you are saying, because your posts don't make a whole lot of sense if that isn't what you are claiming.

 

[Anttech]

Actually, I believe China (currently People's Republic of China) is the oldest uninterrupted empire, if one is referring to interruptions from outside.

You could be correct, I am not an expert on Chinese History, however we all know that it isn't 15 years old (in its current form, or not).

 

[Art]

Putin warning over US missile row
Russian President Vladimir Putin has said Moscow is preparing to take retaliatory measures if the US builds missile defence systems in Europe.
He described as non-existent the threat from Iran that Washington says the new system is designed to counter, suggesting it might be aimed at Russia.

Last week, Russia said it had tested a ballistic missile to maintain "strategic balance" in the world.

The US says the system, to be placed in eastern Europe, is not aimed at Russia.

Washington wants to deploy interceptor rockets in Poland and a radar base in the Czech Republic to counter what it describes as a potential threat from "rogue states" such as Iran and North Korea.

'Not our fault'

Mr Putin made his comments in an interview with foreign reporters ahead of the G8 meeting that starts in Germany on Wednesday.

US President George W Bush is due to meet him at the three-day summit in the resort of Heiligendamm.

The BBC's Rupert Wingfield-Hayes in Moscow says if Mr Putin's words are anything to go by the summit is likely to be stormy.


Mr Putin said he hoped US officials would change their minds about the missile defence plan.

"If this doesn't happen, then we disclaim responsibility for our retaliatory steps, because it is not we who are the initiators of the new arms race which is undoubtedly brewing in Europe," he said.


Mr Putin said neither Iran nor North Korea had the weapons that the system was intended to shoot down.

"We are being told the anti-missile defence system is targeted against something that does not exist. Doesn't it seem funny to you?" he asked.
Meanwhile top Iranian security official Ali Larijani described the planned deployment as the "joke of the year", adding that Iranian missiles were not capable of reaching Europe.

'New targets'

Mr Putin said a new arms race would be the fault of the US.

He said Washington had "altered the strategic balance" by unilaterally pulling out of the anti-ballistic missile (ABM) treaty in 2002.

"If the American nuclear potential grows in European territory, we will have to have new targets in Europe," Mr Putin said.

"It is up to our military to define these targets, in addition to defining the choice between ballistic and cruise missiles."

Last Tuesday, Russia tested an RS-24 missile that successfully struck its target 5,500km (3,400 miles) away.

It was designed to evade missile defence systems, Russia's defence ministry said.

Mr Putin went on to accuse the West of hypocrisy in criticising Russia's human rights record.

He said the US was the main violator of freedoms and human rights around the world and that France, Germany and Britain had problems of their own.

Finally he accused Britain of foolishness in trying to extradite former KGB officer Andrei Lugovoi for the murder of Alexander Litvinenko, another former KGB agent and a critic of Mr Putin.

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/europe/6717119.stm

Published: 2007/06/04 10:06:20 GMT

© BBC MMVII

It looks like europe may become a potential battleground as it was during the cold war with missile batteries, anti-missile batteries and ground forces poised for attack / defence.

I suspect there are many in the pentagon and indeed other military groupings who would welcome a return to the old cold war days with massive spending on defence and huge armies to command. Personally, if that is the plan, then I would prefer if they chose a new potential battlefield to play out their games such as the US for instance. Apart from possibly the UK (or more correctly the poodle Tony Blair) the rest of western europe has zero interest in promoting tension with Russia and once more living under the constant shadow of potential war.

One can see why France is keen to strengthen ties within 'old' europe to counter American imperialism given the US's stated contempt for 'old' europe and it's reckless endangerment of european citizens.

The US is in the happy position of never having had their cities destroyed and it's citizens massacred during the world's previous major conflicts, one suspects if they had they would tread a lot more carefully but when the worst case scenario from current policy is europe gets flattened yet again the American military and it's current war mongering president are happily willing to take the risk of alienating Russia through overt aggressive acts.

Even moderates such as former Russian president Gorbachev lay the blame for the sharply worsening relations firmly at the US's door.

The former Soviet leader, Mikhail Gorbachev, has blamed the US for the current state of relations between Russia and the West.
In a BBC interview, Mr Gorbachev said that the Russians were ready to be constructive, but America was trying to squeeze them out of global diplomacy.

He added that the Iraq War had undermined Tony Blair's credibility.

Mr Gorbachev accused America of "empire-building", which he said the UK should have warned it away from.
<snip>
In an interview with Radio Four's The World This Weekend, Mr Gorbachev said relations between Russia and the West were in a bad state.

"Well, it's worse than I expected," he said through a translator.

"We lost 15 years after the end of the Cold War, but the West I think and particularly the United States, our American friends, were dizzy with their success, with the success of their game that they were playing, a new empire.

"I don't understand why you, the British, did not tell them, 'Don't think about empire, we know about empires, we know that all empires break up in the end, so why start again to create a new mess.'"

He added that the war with Iraq had damaged Britain's relationship with Russia after a promising start.

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/europe/6717037.stm

Published: 2007/06/03 15:48:42 GMT

 

[drankin]

I'm going to have to agree with Gorby. Why do we, the US, need to protect other countries with our missile defenses? All it does is piss off folks over there that don't appreciate it. If N. Korea is going to throw nukes over there, let them protect themselves from it.

 

[momentum_waves]

^ Most Europeans, if asked, would most likely prefer US non-interference in their affairs.

A good insight into current Russian thinking is very clearly outlined in this link: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070604.wputintext0604/BNStory/Front/?pageRequested=all"

 

[drankin]

I didn't read the whole interview but it seems to me that it is not necessary for the US to put up missile defense systems over there. Russia or the EU could provide that kind of security. So I wonder what the true agenda is.