A New Cold War?

Quote:

Putin threatens to target Europe with Missles

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servl...rnational/home

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...11/ixnews.html

Kind of unsettling news - I understand that there have always (and will always) be/been firing solutions for a vast number of places around the world - but to actually mention it at a widley publicised event is kind of shocking, no?

Most amazing jew boots

What did we EXPECT would happen when we violated one of the most important Cold War treaties? Everyone would say "ORLY? K THEN, GG"? Peace is brought about through agreements between the sides. When those agreements are violated, shit happens.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

I'm assuming that by "violated", you meant "left using the mechanism for withdrawal in the treaty". And that withdrawal from the ABM Treaty led to a new agreement between the sides.

This is about more than just the Russians being irked over withdrawal from the ABM Treaty, as the rest of its recent actions, which target Europe as much (or, in some cases, more) as they do America, have indicated.

The Economist's position on Russia for those interested:

Quote:

The West and Russia

Speak truth to power
May 31st 2007
From The Economist print edition


Changing Russia's behaviour is devilishly difficult. But that is no excuse for not trying

Get article background

DEMONSTRATORS thrashed on the streets of Moscow; the impending mugging of another big energy firm, this one part-owned by BP; cyberwarfare against a small neighbour; the bellicose testing of a new ballistic missile, supposedly able to bypass the American missile-defence system about which the Kremlin fulminates—and all that was only in the past fortnight. When the G8 group of rich countries meets next week in Germany, one of its biggest if unadvertised concerns will be the snarling behaviour of one of its own members, Vladimir Putin's Russia—and the urgent need for a more coherent Western policy towards it.

The behaviour, and the dilemma, stem from Russia's explosive combination of strength and weakness. High oil prices, and the world's largest oil-and-gas reserves, have helped pay off most of Russia's debt. They have also fuelled Mr Putin's increasingly assertive diplomacy, while boosting the living standards of many Russians. In some ways, the seven years of his presidency have been among the least bad periods in Russia's history, which helps to explain his popularity—but so does his neutering of the media, strangulation of political opposition and suborning of parliament and elections. That grip counts as a strength in Mr Putin's book; in fact, the authoritarian system he has built is corrupt and unstable—witness the Kremlin in-fighting and increasingly paranoid repression of dissent ahead of his departure from office next year. The economy, meanwhile, is over-reliant on natural resources and perilously unequal. Add to that a demographic catastrophe and continuing trouble in the north Caucasus (see article), and the picture darkens further.

This new Russia, strident but erratic, requires a subtler approach than either the straightforward rivalry of Soviet times or the handouts and advice (not always very helpful) offered to Boris Yeltsin in the 1990s. The inclination of most Western leaders most of the time has been to coddle or appease Mr Putin, rather than confront him—because they have been deluded about his real goals and motives, or distracted by other crises, or divided by the Kremlin's gas deals.

So it was that at last year's G8 summit, in St Petersburg, Mr Putin openly derided both George Bush and Tony Blair, while precious little was said in public about Russia's obvious abandonment of democracy or its abrasive foreign policy. Compared with that, Britain's decision to press for the extradition of the ex-KGB officer suspected of committing radioactive murder in London last year represents a welcome stiffening of tone. More stern talk at this year's G8, from more leaders, about the Kremlin's threats to Western interests and to those of its own citizens—the expropriation of energy assets harms both—would be better than diplomatic platitudes.

But the truth is that, with the Kremlin in its current mood, even robust tickings-off will not change Russia's trajectory. Censorship will prevent most Russians from hearing them; with their zero-sum attitude to diplomacy, some in the Kremlin interpret criticism as evidence that its policies are biting. Yet the harsher measures that some, especially in America, advocate—such as keeping Russia out of the WTO, or kicking it out of the G8 itself—are more likely to do harm than good. They would feed the widespread belief that the encircling West is bent on weakening Russia (Mr Putin himself avowedly sees complaints about his human-rights record as disguised efforts to impede his pursuit of greatness). They would probably encourage even more draconian measures at home; and they would reduce Russia's incentive to co-operate on difficult issues, such as Kosovo and Iran, where its weight could help.

The Russia beyond

There are other possibilities between cringing platitudes and pyrotechnic rows. The Kremlin needs to be told that it does not have an automatic veto in global diplomacy, even in its old sphere of influence, and even if such a veto is attempted in the United Nations Security Council, as it may be on independence for Kosovo. Neighbouring countries such as Georgia (victim of an unjust trade embargo), Estonia (cyberwar) and especially Ukraine, with a crucial parliamentary vote later this year, must be helped to fend off Russian bullying.

Given Mr Putin's power to select his own successor, the West also needs to concentrate on longer-term measures, such as supporting those independent media and lobby groups that still exist in Russia—even when the Kremlin denounces them as spies. The aim must be to ensure that whatever comes after Putinism is better for Russia, and for the world.

http://economist.com/opinion/display...ory_id=9257663

Earlier piece:The big chill

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

And why should Russia be forbidden from bullying yet we be allowed it?

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Quote:

What did we EXPECT would happen when we violated one of the most important Cold War treaties?

You mean a treaty that for all intents and purposes was null and void the moment the Soviet Union ceased to be a sovereign entity?

Quote:

And why should Russia be forbidden from bullying yet we be allowed it?

Because we're America and they aren't. It kind of defeats the purpose of being a bully when you allow someone else to do so. If someone in the world is going to push people around using their power, it should be the United States. After all, you are American, right, Arainach? If it's not us, then it's going to be someone else.

I was speaking idiomatically.

Quote:

And why should Russia be forbidden from bullying yet we be allowed it?

That's a bit of a red herring, don't you think? Two wrongs make a right and whatnot?

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

I think world leaders are getting paranoid, damn everyone thinks everyone is a big threat and hides behind nukes.

FELIPE NO

I dunno, something seems fishy about this. It seems to me that Russia and the United States have been rather close for the last few terms...and now this is supposedly dissolving? What I realize is that the Iraq war seems to be winding down and there is still billions of dollars that need to be spent on war infrastructure.

Going a bit against the grain, it is possible that this 'extended cold war' was planned by both Putin and Bush to maximize the legitimacy of further tax increases. This recent turn of events may actually lead be nothing less than a symbiotic relationship in that both countries will now have monetary reasons to further arm/defend themselves from future threat.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

The cooling relationship between Washington and Moscow (which, really, was lukewarm to begin with) is certainly not very recent. I mean, there's been several significant disagreements between the US and Russia over the course of the past year, and there's been this same "bully" rhetoric since the Iraq War began.

Most amazing jew boots

Could Russia's recent tirade against the US and western powers stem from the fact that we didn't endorse Russia's entry into the WTO? I remember reading a while back (not exactly sure how long ago, but before Russia got all USSR-ish) that Russia was looking for the US' backing to join the WTO or something but we didn't.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070608/ap_on_re_eu/bush

Interesting development.

Putin offers radar site in Azerbaijan

Quote:

Vladimir Putin, bitterly opposed to a U.S. missile shield in Europe, presented President Bush with a surprise counterproposal Thursday built around a Soviet-era radar system in Azerbaijan rather than new defenses in Poland and the Czech Republic. Bush said it was an interesting suggestion and promised to consider it.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Originally Posted by RainMan

I dunno, something seems fishy about this. It seems to me that Russia and the United States have been rather close for the last few terms...and now this is supposedly dissolving?

This recent turn of events may actually lead be nothing less than a symbiotic relationship in that both countries will now have monetary reasons to further arm/defend themselves from future threat.

That's really not the case, nor has it been in the slightly more distant past. That holds for our militaries, our economic powerhouses, our cultures, our U.N. representatives, or our national-level executives. To me (a Russophile), it's unfortunate, but true.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

You didn't really need to respond to that, since it's a vague conspiracy theory that can't be refuted and supported with anything.

Most amazing jew boots