Â鶹ԼÅÄ

Re-Putin "A Mexican Stand-off?" Seems more like a Russian Cuban Missile crisis in reverse.
Putin does not want missiles in his own back-yard as didn't the Yanks. What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

Iran is just the excuse, dangerous as it may be in the future, especially if you live in Israel.
At least it makes a change from the Muslim Bogey-men and Iraq.

Bill B, true, except that the Cuba missiles were nuclear ones, and these aren't - they're just designed to hit other missiles.

You can't really blame Putin for threatening to target Europe with his missiles if Europe can theoretically target anything thrown out from Russia. Being targeted by Russian missiles is the least of our worries, if he wanted to get really nasty he could simply turn off the gas and oil. Perhaps he should actively consider doing this if the US seeks to deploy new technology to destroy the mass destruction equilibrium which has kept the peace for 60 years. I wish that we had a head of state who was just as keen as Putin to stand up for the national interest. Who cares if they killed Litvinyenco ( probably spelt it wrong ), I bet many British people are jealous that they can't dispose of a few thorns in their side the same way.

The question is - why is the US military still in Europe 60 year after the second world war ended.

It is about time the European countries gave them a final salute and move them out.

Ron Paul, US presidential candidate wants to remove all US troops from overseas bases and return them home - maybe he might be able to sort it out.

Has anyone heard what the leader of Iran said today (4.6.07)." The finger of distruction is on the button ready to destroy Israel." Christians the world over know why Iran wants an atomic bomb.Sadley the rest of the world is not interested. On the same day as the above statement from Iran,President Putin from Russia said he might put weapons pointing at Europe. Coincidence?? Why won't the world wake up and listen to the moderate Christians.People think the Bible is a myth.Do you think the Victories of Israel in 1967 and 1974 are fluke victories and unrelated to the times we live in?.God is never taken by surprise,and Christians know what is taking place in the middle east,the Europion Union,Russia,China and other places.The powers that be don't want the truth to be known.The Christian has nothing to lose.Have you? Friends, Armageddon is not far away.

When America say they need it to defend attack from Iran or N Korea (DPRK), It becomes laughable when one actually looks at a map and use common sence its right next door to Moscow, a funny joke from America, and I agree this is a wedge to part Uroupe from getting on with russia.

Iran is no threat to America. The US has more weapons than all other countries put together. Putin is right to be concerned about the missile system on Russia's doorstep.
I think that America is the biggest threat to world peace and security. At the bottom of this Neo-con New American project is the idea of a unipolar world with only one superpower with total world domination ( no different from the Hitler's theory of the Third Reich). The Western media don’t like Putin because he is protecting state resources and strengthening the Russian economy, unlike Yeltzin. British and Americans are desperate to get their hands on Russian gas and oil, but Russia is not as weak as Iraq. Who really wants the cold war? Definitely not Russia. It's Britain and America who want cold war in order to justify huge spending on WMD. There is never enough money for the NHS or for schools, but always enough money for weapons and wars. That's democracy for you. Capitalism is all about profit, control, domination and money. It's like a shark - you give it one finger and it will eat the whole hand. I think Gorbachev was naïve in believing that the world would be a safer place if the cold war ended. Thank God for Putin.
The stronger Russia is, the better. It's safer to have a few strong countries than one superpower.

In Kirsty's introduction to the piece on the Six Day War, she said that until now Israel had only given back Sinai. That's funny, I thought, Israel withdrew from Gaza - and evicted all their settlers in 2005. All was explained in Jeremy Bowen's piece, Israel, he explained, although it no longer has a military presence in Gaza is still 'legally the occupying power'!!!
For Pete's sake, so even though Israel isn't actually occupying Gaza, we at the Â鶹ԼÅÄ will still claim that 'technically' or 'legally' they still are, despite the fact that, actually, they're not.
And yes, I also noticed that the shot used to illustrate Mr Bowen's parting comment 'the effects reverberate around the world' was actually of the Israeli school demolished by Palestinian rockets.

Ref Cameron #4

'The question is - why is the US military still in Europe 60 year after the second world war ended'

Why has there been French & British Troops [1] in Germany also? (me ex BAOR for 3+ years)

Because whilst we forgive certain European allies & economic partners/neighbours (west & eastern varieties) we have not forgotten.

Thankfully most remember history is cyclic, same players, same bs …different wrappings.

Long may the Yanks be around. It took two world wars & millions too die to get American perma-presence in Europe.

As to 'final salutes' NATO works to a degree, but EU 'allies' after 50+ years still largely unable to agree to fair share of risk & action e.g. Afghanistan.

Trouble with 'final salutes' in Europe, some have tendancy too put both hands up & others stick one arm out.

British Public Opinion (I dare fancy) ... in Europe, not run by Europe *

* & the vested secular, atheist, illiberal minority socialist based cliques who wish to dominate the centre/centre right majority with their unworkable rhetoric & failed 'ideas'

But that is why, socialism has long been given the 'final salute' by the key electorates of Europe :)

vikingar

SOURCES:

[1]

I had expected the feature on the six day war to include an analysis of why it happened and peoples' thoughts on it at the time, from both sides. But instead all we got was the normal Â鶹ԼÅÄ simplistic bias of "Israel evil, Arabs holy." And a return to that tired Â鶹ԼÅÄ theme of how wickedly the Israelis have treated the Palestinians since 1967 and, of course, how they have done so without any provocation whatsoever.

So the Israelis knew 1967 would be a walkover did they, that's the first time I've ever heard that; and I suppose the preparations made to turn Tel Aviv football stadium into a cemetery for 40,000 was just for publicity reasons...

Bowen couldn't be bothered to actually say what Nasser threated to do to the Jews; how they violated international law by closing the Tiran straits. He also chose to drop the word "pre-emptive" which almost all commentators use of Israel's actions (since it was certain that the Arabs would attack) and omitted to say that, in fact, Jordan attacked Israel after being misled by Egypt and so, Israel took the West Bank. That occupation came about purely through actions of self defence.

No word of the suicide bombers dispatched by Arafat and Hamas; no word of the continuous and utter intransigence of the Palestinian leaders; no mention of how more Palestinians were arrested and tortured under Arafat than ever were by the Israelis; nor that Palestinians are left to rot in "refugee camps" by their brother Arabs, only that the Israelis hurt the Palestinians and so they lash out by deliberately targetting the civilians of Sderot.

Here we are. The postWW2 hues and cries of 'never again'dissipating before our very eyes. One of the compelling arguments against communism was the Soviet's annexation of Czechoslovakia only for the US to establish a military base in the Czech Republic. Nazi Germany was deprecated for its invasion of Poland yet today the US uses Poland as an outpost for extraordinary rendition. Never again? Me thinks not. Our leaders divert our collective gaze by telling us that the struggle is against global terrorism and climate change. I think not. Our struggle is to avert an implosion when we awake from our collective slumber and realise that through the duplicity of our governments, we are still subjected to the same premises, lies and modus operandi that were responsible for conflicts of yesteryears

At 08:56 PM on 04 Jun 2007, Tim B wrote:
Bill B, true, except that the Cuba missiles were nuclear ones, and these aren't - they're just designed to hit other missiles.
=====================
If these are designed to hit other (presumably ballistic) missiles they should be at least as powerful as the target missiles. Contemporary missile technologies make possible to switch non-nuclear warhead to nuclear one within a few hours, especially if the nuclear warheads are conveniently stored nearby. This simple procedure almost immediately transforms the counter-missile into a full-power nuclear ballistic missile, which is ready for launch within 10-min flight time of Moscow.

At 09:11 PM on 04 Jun 2007, brossen99 wrote:
You can't really blame Putin for threatening to target Europe with his missiles if Europe can theoretically target anything thrown out from Russia. Being targeted by Russian missiles is the least of our worries, if he wanted to get really nasty he could simply turn off the gas and oil.
====================
Putin will sell gas and oil to the West as long as the West is prepared to pay for it. This issue is totally separate from the missile issue; this is business and is subject to common business rules.
USSR was selling the West gas and oil for decades despite missiles on both sides were targeting each other all these years. Yeltsin and Putin have been selling gas and oil to the West since the USSR collapse in 1991 but the new missile crisis erupted very recently in response to the US initiatives in Europe.

At 08:56 PM on 04 Jun 2007, Tim B wrote:
Bill B, true, except that the Cuba missiles were nuclear ones, and these aren't - they're just designed to hit other missiles.
=====================
1. Missiles-interceptors should be at least as fast as their targets. Missiles designed to intercept (especially in space) ballistic missiles are often more powerful (I mean engine power) than the ballistic missiles they are designed to intercept.
2. Contemporary missile technologies make it possible to switch non-nuclear warhead to nuclear one within a few hours, especially if the latter are conveniently stored nearby. Since I am sure that the US military forgot to grant Putin the right of random (at his will) inspections of their future missile launch sites in Poland he has to assume the worst, which is the US are planning to place 10 of their nukes within 10 minutes of flight time of Moscow.
3. I wonder whether anyone finds it strange that Putin does not want to base his response on the assurance given by the US re these missiles?

Most of the "blogs" above echo to some degree my thoughts on both Putin and Israel. Anti-semetism?Israel has always been an easy scapegoat for our problems. There is an excellent comment in The Times by Michael Binyon which should be required reading on Putin and, interestingly enough, he states that Putin has "good relations with Russian Jews."

Putin's outburst will not be unconnected with the end of his term of Office and perhaps is angling for a Russian groundswell to keep him in Office as a "strong leader who puts their interests first".
Other factors may be that if things are not going well in his own country it is the usual ploy to suggest an American threat to divert attention. BP is another "threat" in his country, as Putin wants to control all his energy and keep Europe and Ukraine at his mercy.

As for targetting missiles on his former "colonies" it is just empty rhetoric. Who can guarantee that they are still all targetted on us all, if not, as someone above wrote, it will only take a few clicks to re-target?
Irrespective that we all still live under a nuclear threat, the biggest threat to us all are still the Terrorists factions who are prepared to blow us and themselves up and armed with the Bomb would not think twice of lobbing one on Israel.
As our religious friend above indicated that would be when Armeggedon begins!?? It's President "Dinnerjacket" we need to keep our eyes on, not Putin.

The Â鶹ԼÅÄ and Russia are in their own ways preparing for the day the EU becomes Eurabia. The only difference is that Russia doesn't want but those at the Â鶹ԼÅÄ do!
Londonstan will become a potential target. So Â鶹ԼÅÄ what then - booom!

thank you for showing the olym-pics that viewers sent in. I think the london olympics will be known as the olympics of cunning linguistics?

This naughtiness reminds me of an insight of Alexei Sayle , the chaucer of the age, on the dress style of Newsnight lady presenters and its place in modern society in his classic of English literature 'Barcelona Plates' [get the audio book]. Please get him for newsnight review. It would make my day to hear his views on modern culture.

America doesn't like Russia (and most of the CIS) because it's still basically Stalinist. The same reason it doesn't like Iran and N Korea.

Being good Trotskyists (neocons/internationalists), the USA exports anarcho-capitalism packaged as freedom, human rights and 'liberal democracy' to wherever it sees the likelihood of statism or a planned economy. Just look at Iraq.

The 'evil dooers' even exported it to the UK in the 60s and 70s (Margaret Thatcher, now there was a good anarchist).

Does *anyone* like it? If not, can we have a little order back please as all this 'permanent revolution' dressed up as the 'free market' is getting rather tiresome (someone's always trying to sell me something dodgey that I don't want, or encouraging me to get into debt, and have you seen what's on TV these days? It's quite shocking.)

When Putin said he'd turn his missiles on Europe, he's just protecting his fiends (Iran and N Korea).

Perhaps we could ask him if he'd like to run for PM? Surely he couldn't do worse than the lot we've had for the last few decades, and I don't see any other decent contenders in the wings.

It looks like the USA is imploding anyway:

Why not cover that Newsnight? It's happening here too.

It's called dysgenesis.

Boris 15, think for a minute even if Putin won't. The United States has ten thousand thermonuclear weapons which it could launch from all over the world simultaneously on thousands of misslies at Russia, from Trident submarines under the ocean, from ICBM silos in the US, from B52s with cruise missiles, and dropped from B2 bombers. It could easily and completely wipe out Russia in under one hour...and commit national suicide in the process. Russia could do the same to the US and neither side could stop the other if that was what it wanted to do. Neither side has or could ever have the capacity to launch a first strike on the other without a fatal response. Of what possible additional value could ten missiles in the Czech republic have for attacking Russia?

Here is a current inventory of what America has today!

Just a thought with all these nuclear warheads flying about. On whom are our Trident missiles targetted or are they currently programmed to go straight up and back again?
Answers on a postcard please! The IOM looks a bit dodgy?

Mark 20, you described the nightmare scenario which sometimes haunts me in my sleep. A conflict of this scale would definitely result in total elimination of the human race.
Re your question about the significance of just ten missiles in Poland I will try to find an article, which very convincingly explains why these missiles are so dangerous. When I find the publication I will post the URL on this weblog.
In the meantime please have a look at somewhat related publication at I hope, you might want to explore this website.

We shouldn't worry too much about the risk of MAD or antropogenic global warming, most of us can't do much about that, 'for reasons beyond our control' sadly. What we could be doing is halting the mess that we are slowly making for ourselves through pursuing what prima facie are noble objectives under equal opportunities. For some ethnic groups in particular, higher education and longer time in the workforce will in time reduce their mean population IQ with an adverse consequence for the economy/culture.

Over several generations, our sending more and more females into higher education and the highly competitive workforce will result in their delaying motherhood to such an extent that those in the 130+ IQ band may drop by as much as 60%. Who will run the services?

Note, is especially British secular women who are at most risk, as some minority groups, such as Muslim and the Orthodox Jewish culture still have the sense to insist that despite their potential ability, their womenfolk are not formally educated and are discouraged from
working precisely to ensure that they don't dysgenically breed their group into extinction.

Some of us have done something very silly, for what prima facie look like noble reasons.

Boris #22, the article you referenced is one of paranoid insanity and bears little relationship to reality. How could the US possibly defend against hundreds of MIRVed missiles launched from Russian submarines off its east and west coasts able to reach anywhere within the US in minutes or for that matter hundreds more MIRVed ICBMs launched from deep in central asia with missiles based in Eastern Europe? As defensive weapons against Russia, they are useless except if by accident, a single Russian missile were launched by mistake. Why would the US need these as offensive weapons when it already has so many in far more secure places than on foreign soil? The US would be committing suicide to launch a pre-emptive first strike against Russia. Even were there no retaliation, Americans know that everyone in the world including themselves would die shortly afterwards anyway from radioactive fallout and if that didn't get them, from a nuclear winter. There are no winners in a full scale thermonuclear war no matter which side launches the most or fewest missiles, even if one side launches none.

How many weapons are targeted at Russia already? I read that at the height of the cold war, between the US, the UK, and France at least 67 were targeted on Moscow alone and not one of them was based in Eastern Europe. It was pointed out that by the time the slower flying planes had arrived, they'd find it virtually impossible to identify the target other than by the coordinates of where it had been because after the first 5 or 10 explosions, all evidence that a city had once been there would be gone. American strategic planners and presumably their Russian counterparts simply ask what are the targets and do you want them reduced to boulders, rocks, pebbles, or dust? This is a political issue created by Russia alone, not one of strategic military balance. Anyway, Putin's done the seemingly impossible, he has focused the world's attention away from global warming and other real pressing issues which do matter.

As a follow-up, if you listen to this year's Reith Lectures, bear the above in mind when you hear Sachs telling 'us' that we are 'bursting at the seams'. Just who exactly? Our TFR is well below replacement level as is the rest of the developed world. It is the relatively undeveloped world which is above replacement level and 'bursting at the seams'. Pakistan, Bangladesh and Nigeria have trippled in population in the same time that the UK has inreased by no more than 10 million. Each of the above is 3 x the size of the UK nearly. We are so short of people that our ageing population forces us to IMPORT labour!

If developed nations (like Russia ironically) continue the way they are going, their populations will halve in 30-40 years! This is why their econonly went sour, their equalitarianism probably dumbed down their population so much that they couldn't run GOSPLAN efficiently. The very opposite of what Sachs and his 'shock therapist' free marketeers preach in fact. Export their liberal democracy to anywhere in the world and it will bring their population down as the females are so busy buying toot and paying the over-inflated mortages that they don't have the time or inclination to replace themselves (especially the smart ones who can better see the long term costs of having kids).

This is why Islam 'oppresses' women, it's to ensure their long term suvivial. Orthodox Judaism does the same.

Now ask, who does not? What are the consequences?

As a follow-up, if you listen to this year's Reith Lectures, bear the above in mind when you hear Sachs telling 'us' that we are 'bursting at the seams'. Just who exactly? Our TFR is well below replacement level as is the rest of the developed world. It is the relatively undeveloped world which is above replacement level and 'bursting at the seams'. Pakistan, Bangladesh and Nigeria have tripled in population in the same time that the UK has increased by no more than 10 million. Each of the above is 3 x the size of the UK nearly. We are so short of people that our ageing population forces us to IMPORT labour!

If developed nations (like Russia ironically) continue the way they are going, their populations will halve in 30-40 years! This is why their econonly went sour, their equalitarianism probably dumbed down their population so much that they couldn't run GOSPLAN efficiently. The very opposite of what Sachs and his 'shock therapist' free marketeers preach in fact. Export their liberal democracy to anywhere in the world and it will bring their population down as the females are so busy buying toot and paying the over-inflated mortages that they don't have the time or inclination to replace themselves (especially the smart ones who can better see the long term costs of having kids).

This is why Islam 'oppresses' women, it's to ensure their long term suvivial. Orthodox Judaism does the same.

Now ask, who does not? What are the consequences?

Where does Newsnight find so many weird, paranoid, Russian exiles, and why do you give them so much rapt attention? Could we please have some transparency about where your briefings are coming from, instead of just "Newsnight has learned..."?

This fresh confrontation with Russia has all come together since Secretary of State Rice replaced Colin Powell. Surely it is no coincidence that her speciality was (is?) anti-Soviet studies? Why would anyone trust the governments that stoked up the Iraq war and backed the destruction of Lebanon to not now be set on messing up things with Russia?

Bush lectures Russia on democracy whilst his own Attorney General is exposed as conspiring to limit voter registration by Black and poor voters, falsely prosecute Democrats and generaly politicising the US justice system!

Even without that abysmal track record, would you place your money on corrupt, religious, neo-cons, or Putin and his technocrats?

Newsnight's 'Ethical Man' demonstrated perfectly how growing trees is no answer to global warming. The trees eventually die, or are felled, and the carbon, sooner or later, is released again. The forests are just a temporary buffer. Only limiting the release of carbons long held underground, or finding some way to extract carbon from the air and store it again, this time permanently, will solve the problem. So the man with a forest to sell us is simply cashing in on the problem. Strange that that wasn't put to him.

Meanwhile, would it be too imaginative for Newsnight to take a look at how warming might affect our summer temperatures in the next weeks, and whether people are prepared for the problems they might bring? How are sales of cooling devices going? Will there be the power to run them? France has equipped all homes and centres for the elderly with air conditioned rooms and individual fans and coolers. Cooling in homes doesn't seem planned-for here at all.

The interviews related to global warming I'm really waiting for are ones with green activists who pressed so hard for a clean up of the particle and sulphur emissions that were actually keeping us cool by causing clouds; hiding the rising carbon content of the atmosphere. Did they have no idea that a rapid clean up of those emissions would reduce clouds, decrease rainfall, and raise the surface temperatures, and the ice (or increasingly water) temperatures? At the same time they wanted nuclear power banned, and almost got their way, increasing power generation from carbon sources. Did they have any idea where their mad haste would turn the planet they claimed to care about? Were they totally ignorant of the need to tackle carbon emissions first? If carbon had been the centre of their attention 20 years ago, and suphur later, we might not now be heading for catastrophe.

Jenny #28: But what if all of this 'anthropogenic' global warming talk is just more 'water-melon' (green on the outside, red anarcho-capitalist/Trotsykite/Free-Market in the middle?) See what Nigel Lawson said about this originally being a Thatcherite PR campaign to promote nuclear energy a couple of decades ago.

There are two issues here. First is the anthropogenic case as good as it is claimed to be and second, even if there is a case for it, is there practically anything we can do about it. I personally suspect the answer to the first is no, but I am more concerned about the intractability of the second. I fear it is just a means whereby politicians make it appear that they are doing something, protecting us from catastrophes, when in fact, throughout western liberal democracies we're cutting back on big statist government and politicians are in practice abrogating responsibility and just substituting spin. To have big government one must 'elect' one party 'Stalinist' like governments (as in the USSR) and hard as it is for most to grasp, what we used to have here when we had an 'elitist' Civil Service, and Old Labour type welfare state in the UK. We have eroded that beginning with Thatcher, believing we were fighting off some bogeyman 'the evil empire' It is still being sold to us today, now it's Iraq, Iran, N Korea and even the Putin's Russia. Look what is happening here. Can you tell the difference between New Labour and Neo-Conservative?

There are, I suggest, far more local problems which we should be turning our eyes to.

See comments posted here:

/blogs/newsnight/2007/06/the_cult_of_the_amateur_by_andrew_keen.html

Wrong link above, try this one ;-)

/blogs/newsnight/2007/06/the_cult_of_the_amateur_by_andrew_keen_1.html

Mark No 24, I am amused by your assessment of the article I referred to in my comment No 22. This is because I find the publication to be very logical and pragmatic; thus, you are free to conclude that I am too paranoid and/or insane!

The submarines issue is not as simple as you presented. If in 1990 USSR had about 360 nuclear submarines in operation against just under 200 of the US/NATO ones at present the ratio is 105 (now belonging to Russia, not the SU) to 260 respectively. Within the next 10 years about 30 Russian submarines will end their life (and only two are planned to be built) while the US/NATO will keep increasing their submarine fleet with the speed of about three subs per year (this data is widely published on the Internet including websites of the Russian Ministry of Defence and of NATO). This will mean that soon every Russian submarine will be accompanied in international waters by three or more US/NATO subs, not speaking about the electromagnetic impulse generators pioneered by the US. Although the latter will be mounted on Russian subs as well, at critical time the advantage in numbers will make most of the Russian submarines defenceless/useless. This slightly changes the picture, don’t you agree?

In my view the difference in assessment of the situation with these ten missiles results from some Westerners viewing the issue as a stand-alone one, while Russians view it as a next chapter of a quite long ‘story’. For Russians the story began in late 1980-s with Gorbachev reaching agreements with Reagan and Thatcher about disarmament, unification of Germany, dissolution of the Warsaw Pact followed by the same happening to NATO etc. I personally watched on TV the speech of Manfred Werner (then the NATO Secretary General) who was standing beside Gorbachev in Brussels promising in front of a thousand of reporters that, if the Warsaw Pact disappears, NATO guarantees that (as a minimum) it will never expand from its current borders! He also said that NATO guarantees that in such a case no military base will be built in any of the countries members of the Warsaw Pact or in the former Soviet republics.

What happened since then? Gorbachev and USSR/Russia complied with all their promises made to the US & NATO: it let Germany to be unified, dissolved Warsaw Pact, reduced its armed forces by 30%, destroyed about 1,800 mid-range missiles against 800 of those destroyed by NATO, removed 90% of troops from its European part to Siberia and even abandoned its huge military base in Cuba as a goodwill gesture. In response to that the US and/or NATO have not complied with 95% of their promises made at the time: a) just within about 10 years NATO expanded Eastwards including former Warsaw Pact countries in the organisation, b) it built several military bases in these countries and plans to build more, c) to date none of the NATO countries ratified the agreement about conventional military forces restrictions in accordance with which Russia moved 90% of its forced to Siberia; d) the US/NATO military bases are growing in former Soviet republics like mushrooms. In addition, NATO proved in Yugoslavia that its defensive military doctrine has been replaced by the offensive one. I guess, the issue of 10 missiles in Poland became the last drop which overfilled the chalice…

So, this is not really about 10 missiles here or there; this is about the next step in the process of encircling Russia with military bases and in constantly changing the balance of power between Russia and the US/NATO in favour of the latter. I think, with this step the last remaining illusions about trusting the Western leaders have now disappeared in Moscow. Recently even Gorbachev bitterly confirmed on Russian TV how naive he was 15 years ago and that he truly regrets about being so trustful at the time…

Sad story, isn't it?

Mark No 24, I am amused by your assessment of the article I referred to in my comment No 22. This is because I find the publication to be very logical and pragmatic; thus, you are free to conclude that I am paranoid and/or insane too!
The submarines issue is not as simple as you presented. If in 1990 USSR had about 360 nuclear submarines in operation against just under 200 of the US/NATO ones at present the ratio is 105 (now belonging to Russia, not the SU) to 260 respectively. Within the next 10 years about 30 Russian submarines will end their life (and only two are planned to be built) while the US/NATO will keep increasing their submarine fleet with the speed of about three subs per year (this data is widely published on the Internet including websites of the Russian Ministry of Defense and of NATO). This will mean that soon every Russian submarine will be accompanied in international waters by three or more US/NATO subs, not speaking about the electromagnetic impulse generators pioneered by the US. Although the latter will be mounted on Russian subs as well, at critical moment the advantage in numbers will make most of Russian submarines temporarily unable to function. This slightly changes the picture, don’t you agree?
In my view the difference in assessment of the situation with these ten missiles originates from some Westerners viewing the issue as a stand-alone one, while Russians view it as a next ‘chapter’ of a quite long ‘story’. For Russians the story began in late 1980-s with Gorbachev reaching agreements with the West about disarmament, unification of Germany, dissolution of the Warsaw Pact followed by the same happening to NATO etc. I personally watched on TV the speech of Manfred Werner (then the NATO Secretary General) who was standing beside Gorbachev in Brussels promising in front of a thousand of reporters that, if the Warsaw Pact disappears, NATO guarantees that at least it will never expand from its current (at that time) borders! He also said that NATO guarantees that in such a case no military base will be built in any of the countries members of the Warsaw Pact or in the former Soviet republics.
What happened since then? Gorbachev and USSR/Russia complied with all their promises made to the US & NATO: it let Germany to be unified, dissolved Warsaw Pact, reduced its armed forces by 30%, destroyed about 1,800 mid-range missiles against 800 of those destroyed by NATO, removed its military bases from Eastern Europe and 90% of troops from its European part to Siberia. In addition Russia abandoned its huge military base in Cuba just as a goodwill gesture aimed at comforting the US. In response to that the US and/or NATO have not complied with 95% of their promises made at the time: a) just within about 10 years NATO expanded Eastwards including former Warsaw Pact countries in the organisation, b) it used all former Soviet military installations in these countries to build NATO military bases and plans to build additional ones, c) to date none of the NATO countries ratified the agreement about conventional military forces restrictions in accordance with which Russia moved 90% of its forced to Siberia; d) the US/NATO military bases are growing in former Soviet republics like mushrooms. In addition, NATO proved in Yugoslavia that its defensive military doctrine has been replaced by the offensive one. I guess, the issue of 10 missiles in Poland became the last drop to overfill the chalice…
So, this is not really about 10 missiles here or there; this is about the next step in the process of encircling Russia with military bases and in constantly changing the balance of power between Russia and the US/NATO in favour of the latter. I think, with this step the last remaining in Moscow illusions about trusting what the US/NATO say have now disappeared. Recently even Gorbachev bitterly confirmed on Russian TV how naive he was 15 years ago and that he truly regrets about being so trustful at the time…
Sad story, isn't it?

I can't tell you how upset I get when I hear how great "democracy" is supposed to be! It may work for you in your country, but the United States was NEVER a democracy. Anyone who reads history knows that democracies have been tried many times before and have ALWAYS failed and will continue to do so. The first European colonists who established the government of the United States were aware of the failures of democracy and specifically created a Constitution which established the new country as a "Republic" - that is, a loose coalition of states, each of which established their own laws according to the needs of their citizens. The states contributed resources to the Federal Government, to be spent primary for national defense and regulation of interstate commerce. Nowhere in our Constitution does it grant the Federal Government the power to interfere in the politics of other nations. While we were sleeping, our Republic was subverted into this so-called democracy, but its not really even that… the individual citizen no longer matters - its all about money and power. That's why we (and Europe) are on this downhill slide. Long live Ron Paul!

Mark, in addition to my comment No 32 I can offer the following opinions:

and

Mark, one more reference is below:

I am in agreement with the lady, study Ron Paul via the internet for a true analysis that the prevailing establishment do not want you to have access to

Regards