"U.S. Deploying Missiles Along Russia's Borders" Topic

….Could Lead To ‘New Cuban Crisis'

"The U.S. deployment of land-based missile systems near Russia's borders could lead to a stand-off comparable to the 1962 Cuban missile crisis, Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov was quoted as saying on Monday.

Russia has been fiercely critical of U.S. plans to deploy missile systems in eastern Europe, and of Washington's withdrawal from the INF arms control treaty…"

Main page

link

Amicalement
Armand

Perhaps if they hadn't purposefully violated/broken the INF Treaty first, with land-based missiles of their own, things would be different.

Ah, the Cold War is back on again.

Pushing NATO up to Russia's doorstep was foolish. It is essentially the same as what Khrushchev tried in Cuba.

I have no love for Putin, but the closest reciprocal act that I can think of would be to put Russian missiles in Cuba again.

My guess is that they won't actually go that far, though we obviously would.

Pushing NATO up to Russia's doorstep was foolish. It is essentially the same as what Khrushchev tried in Cuba.

Yeah, they need their Lebensraum to feel safe…

The missiles in question, by the way, are the x10 THAAD ABMs that were supposed to go into a Polish defense base negotiated, funded and built by both the US and Poland during Bush the Younger's (POTUS 43) admin. The base plan started around 2002, btw.

Obama cancelled the project when he took office. The Poles, feeling under threat from Russia, weren't very happy with that and made a big stink. Obama then blah-blah-blahed about putting SM-3s at the site to soothe Polish fears, but was then caught on an open mic telling Putin's man Medvedev:

"On all these issues, but particularly missile defense, this, this can be solved but it's important for him to give me space."

Medvedev told the president in English, "Yeah, I understand. I understand your message about space. Space for you…"

President Obama continued his statement, "This is my last election. After my election I have more flexibility."

Medvedev responded saying, again in English, "I understand. I will transmit this information to Vladimir."

So Obama kissed Putin's ass to get breathing room for the 2012 election, lying to a US ally in the process. Nice, huh?

So Trump is now following through on a plan that's been in motion for almost 17 years -- and now it's a "surprise move" that escalates tensions??? Russia complains, "Oh, Russian soil will be under the umbrella of these (defensive, yes?) missiles."

Are we supposed to go "OMG, Russia's not happy! We'd better do something nice to make them feel safe and comfy!"

Do we think the Poles and other eastern European countries don't count in this? That they're all comfy-happy to have their airspace blanketed by Russian SAMs??

IF Russia has no territorial and control aspirations past its borders, then defensive missiles do not change its security posture.

However, IF Russia thinks that it may want to use IRBMs to threaten its neighbors someday, then yes, this will make them unhappy. Bummer.

SBminisguy, I wouldn't qualify it as a surprise move, but I would expect it to escalate tensions, and given that we have the upper hand in this, I think that we're okay with it.

I don't think that we supposed to say , " OMG, Russia's not happy…". But we shouldn't act surprised or outraged by Russian comments or reaction to the situation.

The age of the plan is irrelevant, as are the politics associated with the different administrations. It simply remains that we possess greater technology, more capable weapons, and have taken action that will likely lead to a predictable reaction.

I appreciate the argument about the missiles being a defensive weapon, but the reality is that if both sides are not roughly equal in resources and capability, that these simply become weapons. They negate a weapon that can be used as the basis for offense, and in defense as a deterrent. They uneven the playing field, and in doing so, potentially create problems independent of the one that they solve.

The scope of the issue is greater than simply placing Missiles in Poland. In the short term, the Polish government probably feels better , but in the longer term, are you and I safer? If Putin did place IRBMs in Cuba as a Result, would we still be better off? Would Poland care?

For a variety of reasons that go far beyond the scope of the original post, I'm not convinced that this is the best decision and action related to the problem. Actually, I am convinced that it is not, thus my first post on this thread.

The age of the plan is irrelevant, as are the politics associated with the different administrations. It simply remains that we possess greater technology, more capable weapons, and have taken action that will likely lead to a predictable reaction.

No, it does matter. Russia's security goals require that all of its neighbors be vulnerable to Russian military power -- s even a handful of ABMs that could act as a deterrence pisses them off. They were successful in pressuring Obama into dropping Polish defense plans, and now that they've decided to around with the US in Venezuela and elsewhere, Trump put those ABM plans back into play.

Do you think Russian action elsewhere don't feed into this?

The scope of the issue is greater than simply placing Missiles in Poland. In the short term, the Polish government probably feels better , but in the longer term, are you and I safer? If Putin did place IRBMs in Cuba as a Result, would we still be better off? Would Poland care?

Not at all concerned. There's no way in hell Russia is letting IRBMs go to Cuba where they could easily lose control of them. They don't have that many of them, the Cuba of today is not the solid puppet ally of 1961, and they don't have the resources to maintain them well or for long. I mean, what was their bold counter move? They sent one frigate to the Caribbean escorted by it's own supply ship and tugboat in case it break down.

I appreciate the argument about the missiles being a defensive weapon, but the reality is that if both sides are not roughly equal in resources and capability, that these simply become weapons. They negate a weapon that can be used as the basis for offense, and in defense as a deterrent. They uneven the playing field, and in doing so, potentially create problems independent of the one that they solve.

The playing field is already uneven. This levels it slightly and also tells Russia that their actions do not go unnoticed nor unchecked.

There was an article a few years back about the interceptors in Poland, and why Russia was so bent out of shape.

The US plan / thinking was that Russia shouldn't object to 10 ABMs on their border. 10 might neutralize Iran's long range capability (for the foreseeable future), but surely wouldn't matter to an arsenal the size of Russia's – right?

Then the Russians conducted 2 or 3 ballistic tests in a row that all failed – suddenly 10 interceptors looked a lot more intimidating.

The thing is, all those former WARPAC nations all requested to join NATO. NATO didn't send ambassadors to ask, "want to join?"

The former WARPAC nations are refusing to be Russian client states.

It's all very reasonable, right up until you read a history book and look at things from the Russian side of the map.

Expanding NATO up to the Russian border is inherently threatening.

Putting THAADs on Russia's border (thereby undermining their strategic nuclear forces) is inherently threatening.

They've been invaded by the West repeatedly over the last two hundred years. Big surprise they want client buffer states.

Big surprise they want client buffer states.

Big surprise, those potential client buffer states have been there, done that, had their nations occupied and brutalized for almost a half century of Soviet-Russian rule…and aren't interested in a repeat performance.

Kaliningrad = the new Cuba, at least for the Europeans and NATO.

Big surprise, those potential client buffer states have been there, done that, had their nations occupied and brutalized for almost a half century of Soviet-Russian rule…and aren't interested in a repeat performance.

Half a century? And the rest! Some of those places where under Russian rule when the Tsars were in power. And some spilt a lot blood to get free of Imperial Russia only to be sucked into the Soviet sphere by largely foul means post-revolution. AFAIK Russian diplomacy vis a vie its 'near abroad' seems entirely insensitive to this history so its hardly surprising there is a bit of que outside NATO's membership office!

Amazing. Was it only the Russians who created problems for their neighbors? Maybe this can be reproached with, if not all, then many other countries?))) Did not the United States create problems not only for its neighbors, but generally across the globe thousands of kilometers from its own borders? Let's ask, for example, the Mexicans? Or Vietnamese?
Or the British? How great is the Irish love for them?
If small countries fear Russian aggression, why not create their own military bloc? Against the current weak Russia, this would be quite enough. NATO's move to Russia's borders is a clear and immediate threat to Russian security. And an adequate response to the approach of the NATO infrastructure will be necessary.
If, hypothetically, Russia enters a military bloc with China, will Europe be happy? You will feel safe? Chinese military bases in Europe – will not frighten you?

In fact, I think the reason for the destruction of the nuclear weapons treaties is different. Bilateral agreements are outdated because they do not take into account the emergence of new major players on the nuclear map. China, for example, has nothing to do with them. The situation has changed. It requires an appropriate response. And everything else is just information noise to justify their own actions.