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

  • News
  • Thread starter Art
  • Start date
In summary, there has been a recent exchange of criticisms between Russian President Putin and US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice regarding the US missile shield and Russian concerns over it. The language used by both sides is reminiscent of the Cold War, leading to questions about the possibility of a Cold War II. However, experts believe that Russia does not have the resources to engage in another arms race, despite its current wealth and natural resources. The main target of the US missile shield is believed to be Russia, but the US claims it is meant to protect against rogue missiles from Iran or North Korea. The tension between Russia and the US has strained relations, but it is unlikely to result in another Cold War due to the changing global political climate.
  • #71
momentum_waves said:
^ Most Europeans, if asked, would most likely prefer US non-interference in their affairs.
Undoubtedly!
Any sane person would immediately ask the question why the USA still has military bases in Europe.

The EU is not a democracy. A democracy is where the majority gets their way. So these bases will undoubtedly stay. It's the same with for instance adding Turkey to the EU, the majority does not want it, but that does not mean it is not going to happen.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #72
The current US administration is polarizing us the whole world against us. Now even Russia. I guess starting a new cold war will make someone lots of money...
 
  • #73
MeJennifer said:
The EU is not a democracy.

:rolleyes:

Where did you say you are living ?

It's the same with for instance adding Turkey to the EU, the majority does not want it, but that does not mean it is not going to happen.
If the majority does not want it, it will not happen. Ever heard of "a referendum". In France, The Netherlands the population rejected the "first official version" of the European constitution. Now, the commission is working on a new adapted version to satisfy all nations, which is NOT easy.

marlon
 
  • #74
We should have a euro-wide vote:

Who do you love more: the US or Russia?

The result would be a no-brainer.

I only hope your next president drops this missile shield rubbish and joins the 21st century.
 
  • #75
J77 said:
We should have a euro-wide vote:

Who do you love more: the US or Russia?

The result would be a no-brainer.

I only hope your next president drops this missile shield rubbish and joins the 21st century.

Putin or Bush ? Hmmm...

Actually, why do we need to chose. The European Union should refuse this ineffective missile shielding bull****. The US, Russia, anybody, should deal with that stuff on their own territory. I completely oppose the presence of ANY non European military base within the borders of the EU.


marlon
 
Last edited:
  • #76
Putin or Bush ? Hmmm...
:smile:

As opposed to Bush vs Gore?

Or Bush vs Kerry?

So much for democracy, eh? :smile:
 
  • #77
Astronuc said:
:smile:

As opposed to Bush vs Gore?

Or Bush vs Kerry?
:smile:

You are asking me ? Well, i dunno. But, this is not my worry because i ain't no US citizen. This sunday, i will vote for the next federal government of Belgium. Which party to chose for, well, that I DO know :wink:.

marlon
 
  • #78
MeJennifer said:
Undoubtedly!
Any sane person would immediately ask the question why the USA still has military bases in Europe.

The EU is not a democracy. A democracy is where the majority gets their way. So these bases will undoubtedly stay. It's the same with for instance adding Turkey to the EU, the majority does not want it, but that does not mean it is not going to happen.
It doesn't mean its going to either. And I would put money on it not happening in my lifetime.
 
  • #79
marlon said:
:smile:

You are asking me ? Well, i dunno. But, this is not my worry because i ain't no US citizen. This sunday, i will vote for the next federal government of Belgium. Which party to chose for, well, that I DO know :wink:.

marlon
The majority of the Belgians want a split Belgium. Do you think that democracy will be served in this case as well? How about a referendum?
 
Last edited:
  • #80
momentum_waves said:
When did Russia cease being a 1st world nation?
I said viable - and it was the day after their communist government fell.
What are the comparative economic growth figures (rates, GDP) for US & Russia? :approve:
You ask that question as if you think it is relevant... :rolleyes:

When your GDP drops by 90%, you have nowhere left to go but up.
 
  • #81
Anttech said:
Yet more bull ****. Russia has the longest uninterrupted empire in the world right now. Its not 15 years old...

[from another post]however we all know that it isn't 15 years old (in its current form, or not).
Again, you say this as if you think it is relevant to the thread... :rolleyes: Russia of today bears little resemblance to Russa 20 years ago and no resemblance to Russia 100 years ago. Just because the people use the same name, doesn't make it the same country.

This is an important point. What you arguing is missing this point.
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.
Oh, ok - I get it now: you misread my post. See, if you'd explain your point, we could avoid these misunderstandings.

When I said the US was in the same place as before the end of the cold war, it should have been reasonably clear that I meant financially and militarily since that's what the discussion was about.
 
Last edited:
  • #82
russ_watters said:
Again, you say this as if you think it is relevant to the thread... :rolleyes: Russia of today bears little resemblance to Russa 20 years ago and no resemblance to Russia 100 years ago. Just because the people use the same name, doesn't make it the same country.
I agree with that.

It looks like the proverbial neocons want to kick out Putin and replace him with some currupt media mogul or similar personalities who made billions in the last decade. And of course this person has to be pro Israel.
 
Last edited:
  • #83
MeJennifer said:
The majority of the Belgians want a split Belgium.
That's absolutely untrue. Besides, reforming the state does not mean splitting up the country in t"wo separate parts closed down with borders". It's a matter of what is regulated by the federal government and what is regulated by the communities.

Do you think that democracy will be served in this case as well? How about a referendum?
Ofcourse, the majority is ALWAYS right !

marlon
 
  • #84
So you would be in favor of a referendum on this?
 
  • #85
MeJennifer said:
So you would be in favor of a referendum on this?

Me personally, YES.

And i would oppose "splitting up the country".

marlon
 
  • #86
Russia of today bears little resemblance to Russa 20 years ago and no resemblance to Russia 100 years ago. Just because the people use the same name, doesn't make it the same country.
hmmm... The fact of the matter is: it is the same country. Have you ever been to Russia? What are you basing your presumptions on?
 
  • #87
MeJennifer said:
The majority of the Belgians want a split Belgium. Do you think that democracy will be served in this case as well? How about a referendum?
No a minority want that. The Walloons and Flems may talk dirty behind each others backs, on top of that Flanders maybe subsidising Wallonia, but separatism is frowned apon here to the extent that people don't look at it as a viable option...
 
  • #88
MeJennifer said:
I agree with that.

It looks like the proverbial neocons want to kick out Putin and replace him with some currupt media mogul or similar personalities who made billions in the last decade. And of course this person has to be pro Israel.

Would hate to see them try, if they want another War perhaps ask Mexico to host it for them...
 
  • #89
russ_watters said:
Again, you say this as if you think it is relevant to the thread... :rolleyes: Russia of today bears little resemblance to Russa 20 years ago and no resemblance to Russia 100 years ago. Just because the people use the same name, doesn't make it the same country.
What do you mean by this? Are you simply stating a global truism that all countries change with time or are you trying to make a point specific to the Russian Federation?

The Russia of today still has much in common with the Russia of yesteryear not least an arsenal of 16,000 nuclear warheads ~7000 of which are currently operational so they are definitely not somebody you should wish to antagonise for fun.

One should learn from history. The first world war started because Germany felt it was being surrounded by potential hostile governments and that there was a concerted effort being made to ring-fence it's influence on the world stage not too disimilar from what is being done to Russia today.

It would be interesting to see how the US gov't would react if Russia were to build a missile interceptor base in Mexico or Cuba whilst recruiting all of the S American countries into a Russian led military alliance.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #90
russ_watters said:
When I said the US was in the same place as before the end of the cold war, it should have been reasonably clear that I meant financially and militarily since that's what the discussion was about.

Militarily I would speculate your technology is better, but when MAD comes into the game it becomes almost irrelevant. Financially you are waaaaaay more debt. So as I said; even with your very thin remit, you arent.

Pointless arguments.. well kettle pot black is all I can say to that :smile:
 
  • #91
The U.N. might be inept, but keeping NATO only furthers the tensions. Do we need a missile shield in Europe? We are a hyperpower capable of full spectrum dominance. I fail to see any just rationalization for this shield.

It seems to me that we are responding to terrorism all wrong. We're supposed to have more allies right now, we're supposed to be reaching out to our neighbors, not building higher fences. Even the highest walls won't protect us. Instead, I've never before seen so much anti-American sentiment. The best chance we have against terrorism is embracing our friends.
 
  • #92
Mallignamius said:
The U.N. might be inept, but keeping NATO only furthers the tensions. Do we need a missile shield in Europe? We are a hyperpower capable of full spectrum dominance. I fail to see any just rationalization for this shield.

It seems to me that we are responding to terrorism all wrong. We're supposed to have more allies right now, we're supposed to be reaching out to our neighbors, not building higher fences. Even the highest walls won't protect us. Instead, I've never before seen so much anti-American sentiment. The best chance we have against terrorism is embracing our friends.

Who are our friends?
 
  • #93
Mallignamius said:
The U.N. might be inept, but keeping NATO only furthers the tensions. Do we need a missile shield in Europe? We are a hyperpower capable of full spectrum dominance. I fail to see any just rationalization for this shield.

It seems to me that we are responding to terrorism all wrong. We're supposed to have more allies right now, we're supposed to be reaching out to our neighbors, not building higher fences. Even the highest walls won't protect us. Instead, I've never before seen so much anti-American sentiment. The best chance we have against terrorism is embracing our friends.

this is vary true.

one way to combat the threat of north korea or any other "rogue state" that intents to use a WMD tipped missile would be to share the anti-missile technology with russia and make a cooperative effort to make a missile shield. that way you have russia covering some of the bill as well as being a regional supporter of the project. this might be taking it a little far, but it sounds like there was no effort made to include russia in the project so of course they are going to feel like there was a reason for excluding russian control or oversight.

there are tons and tons of other things involved with the war on terror where the paranoia of the current admin has alienated potential allies.

ps. "you are either with us or against us" need i say more?
 
  • #94
drankin said:
Who are our friends?
Tony Blair and John Howard? :biggrin:
 
  • #95
drankin said:
Who are our friends?

That's a question I wish no one would need ask. And that's very much the point I was making. We're losing friends. We're supposed to be gaining new ones and strengthening the ones we have. I'm optimistic that the potential, given proper diplomatic efforts, to rebuild or form new friendships exists.
 
  • #97
Anttech said:
Well it seem Mr Putin has completely outflanked Mr Bush...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6729751.stm

Now will Bush listen, I hope so...
On the other hand I believe the US has outflanked Europe. This missile shield presents a major setback for those who wish to see Europe develop as a cohesive entity with the ability to project real power in the world.

By appointing themselves as the 'protectors' of the eastern european countries the US has effectively nullified the attempts of western europe to assume that role and so negated the current drive for greater military cohesion between 'old' europe and the former members of the Soviet bloc.

A weaker Europe is obviously a good thing from a US and (for different reasons) a UK viewpoint but just as obviously this is not so good for the EU. It will be interesting to see what countersteps the EU takes next.
 
  • #98
Anttech said:
Militarily I would speculate your technology is better, but when MAD comes into the game it becomes almost irrelevant. Financially you are waaaaaay more debt. So as I said; even with your very thin remit, you arent.

Pointless arguments.. well kettle pot black is all I can say to that :smile:

Financially, our GDP is far greater than Russia's GDP.

Also, according to the CIA world factbook, the US made up 40% of the entire world's military spending in 2006. It is believed that so far in 2007, that percent is 50. That means we spend more on our military now than every other country in the world combined.
 
Last edited:
  • #99
moose said:
Financially, our GDP is far greater than Russia's GDP.

Also, according to the CIA world factbook, the US made up 40% of the entire world's military spending in 2006. It is believed that so far in 2007, that percent is 50. That means we spend more on our military now than every other country in the world combined.
As I've stated previously who spends the most is not what determines the outcome of an arms race. Here is a quote from Putin from the article linked above which exemplifies this
We have taken into account the experience of the Soviet Union and we are not going to get entangled into the arms race.

We're not going to reciprocate actions, we're not going to mirror such actions. We are going to find other ways. This will be an asymmetric answer.

For instance, the US is creating a huge AMD system which will cost billions and billions of dollars. We said, we are not going to go this way, we will build much cheaper but very effective systems of overriding such a missile-defence system. Through this, we will maintain the balance of forces.
So as Anttech rightly says so long as Russia retains the ability to fire off its thousands of nuclear warheads MAD reigns.
 
  • #100
Art said:
So as Anttech rightly says so long as Russia retains the ability to fire off its thousands of nuclear warheads MAD reigns.

Well of course MAD continues. I was mainly referring to Anttech's financial comment.
 
  • #101
Well here's a twist -

Putin Offers to Base U.S. Missile Shield in Azerbaijan
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=10801011
Morning Edition, June 7, 2007 · Russian President Vladimir Putin offered a surprise compromise Thursday on a U.S. missile shield, saying he would drop his objections to it if President Bush agreed to base the system in Azerbaijan rather than Eastern Europe.

During a meeting on the sidelines of the G-8 summit in Germany, Putin told Bush he would not seek to retarget Russian missiles on Europe if the United States agrees to put the radar-based system in Azerbaijan, a former Soviet republic bordering the Caspian Sea.

Bush's reaction to Putin's idea was: "Interesting proposal — let's let our experts have a look at it," according to White House National Security Adviser Steve Hadley. Hadley was in their hourlong meeting on the sidelines of a summit of the world's eight major industrialized democracies — the leaders' first since the dispute erupted earlier this year.

Bush has proposed basing the radar in the Czech Republic and interceptor rockets in Poland, rousing Moscow's suspicions that a system built in its backyard had to be aimed at it. The United States insisted the shield was aimed at potential nuclear threats from Iran, not Russia.

Putin said the existing Soviet-era radar station is rented by Russia under a continuing agreement between Moscow and the government of Azerbaijan.

He argued the benefits of his suggested substitute: An Azerbaijan-based system would cover all of Europe rather than just part of it, and destroyed missile debris would fall in the ocean rather than on land.

Missiles in Poland?! to protect against whom?

Missiles and Radar in Azerbaijan or even Romania/Bulgaria near the Black Sea would make sense assuming the missiles come from SE of Europe.

Actually I would prefer no missiles, just as I would prefer no war.
 
  • #102
Isn't it obvious Astronuc, the USA already has military bases in western Europe, now they are looking for an excuse to put them in eastern Europe as well.

How about a US military station near every big city in the world to "protect" the world from terrorism. :rolleyes:
 
  • #103
good thing i thought of this sort of thing on the 6th instead of the 7th or i would be looking the fool.

does anyone know much about the "the existing Soviet-era radar station" in Azerbaijan? I am wondering if the station is staffed by Azerbaijanis and used by russia or if it is more like a russian base on azerbaijan soil. the thing is the russians would love to have a sophisticated facility like an american anti-missile radar system close by so they could learn about it. if the americans are truly not interested in using this system as a protection against russia then this might be a good solution with some tweaking. if however the americans want to keep this technology firmly out of russian hands they would likely offer to take over the russian leased facility, build some high walls with razor wire and put a "no fly zone" into effect 100 miles in every direction from the place. this wouldn't suit russia because it would be the exact same problem as before
 
  • #104
Astronuc said:
Well here's a twist -

Putin Offers to Base U.S. Missile Shield in Azerbaijan
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=10801011


Missiles in Poland?! to protect against whom?

My guess is Iran.


Actually I would prefer no missiles, just as I would prefer no war.

Theres nothing wrong with interceptor missiles. They are designed to destroy other missiles, not kill people.
 
  • #105
Art said:
On the other hand I believe the US has outflanked Europe. This missile shield presents a major setback for those who wish to see Europe develop as a cohesive entity with the ability to project real power in the world.

By appointing themselves as the 'protectors' of the eastern european countries the US has effectively nullified the attempts of western europe to assume that role and so negated the current drive for greater military cohesion between 'old' europe and the former members of the Soviet bloc.

A weaker Europe is obviously a good thing from a US and (for different reasons) a UK viewpoint but just as obviously this is not so good for the EU. It will be interesting to see what countersteps the EU takes next.
To be outflanked you have to have players on the field, do you not?
The USA are also the self appointed protectors of the middle east, and to be very frank, they are, rather there politics are as hated in *eastern* europe as they are in the middle east. So who won what? All I see is a *weak* Russia tell the USA where they can put there *might* ,, leave it or lumpt it THAT is where they will have to put it, since no other pill will be swallowed!

Hearts and minds... Democracy... Hearts and minds...
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

News Is the Nuclear Arms Race Making a Comeback?
5
Replies
153
Views
13K
News Condoleezza Rice named as Bush's nominee for new Sec. of State. Good god
Replies
33
Views
5K
News What is the impact of Russia and China's growing influence in Latin America?
Replies
2
Views
5K
News Russia's Return to Totalitarianism
Replies
2
Views
8K
News Doomsday Clock at 6 Minutes to Midnight
Replies
9
Views
4K
News Is Washington's Strategy in Ukraine a Prelude to a New Cold War?
Replies
7
Views
3K
News Interview: U.S., Russia still face mutual destruction threat
Replies
14
Views
3K
News UK Diplomats slam Blair on Mid-East
Replies
2
Views
2K
News THE CAUSES OF WAR What factors lead to the outbreak of war between nations?
2
Replies
39
Views
6K
News Is War Sometimes Necessary to Achieve Peace?
Replies
9
Views
3K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top