'Anxiety' in Moscow over US-Lithuania missile base talks

ft.com ^ | June 19, 2008 | Neil Buckley in Moscow and Daniel Dombey in Washington

[Tailgunner Joe]

A senior Russian lawmaker warned yesterday that discussions between the US and Lithuania over co-operating on Washington's missile defence system "could not but provoke anxiety" in Moscow.

Konstantin Kosachev, head of the international committee of Russia's lower house of parliament, said the development confirmed Russia's fears about the creation of a Baltic "grey zone", in which the US could deploy "serious" weapons close to its borders - in countries formerly part of the Soviet Union.

Such concerns were part of the reason Russia last year suspended implementation of the Conventional Forces in Europe treaty, one of the cornerstones of the post-cold war security architecture, he said.

Mr Kosachev told Interfax news agency that Russia had previously been assured that there were no plans to site even conventional weapons covered by the CFE treaty in the Baltics, let alone advanced missile defence equipment.

"It seems that, through such little steps, people are trying to cross the 'red line' beyond which problems begin for the security of our country," he said.

Washington has long insisted that European bases for the missile defence system are intended to counteract a threat from Iran and would have no impact on Russia's strategic nuclear development.

The US is currently in negotiations with Poland over siting 10 missile interceptors on Polish soil and has almost wrapped up similar discussions with the Czech Republic about placing a missile defence radar system in that country.

But US officials are dismayed that the negotiations with Poland have not yet concluded, despite their earlier expectations. The Polish public is believed to be concerned that hosting the sites could antagonise Russia. Meanwhile Washington regards the Polish government's demands for greater military assistance as being unrealistic.

As a result, officials say the US is increasingly looking at other options for hosting the interceptor base - particularly Lithuania.

However, Poland remains the focus of Washington's attention, not least because the Bush administration wants to start construction on the interceptor base this year, a step which would make it harder for the next administration to reverse policy on missile defence.

Russia's foreign ministry played down the news of contacts between US and Lithuania, saying it had "no information confirming" it. Novosti, a state-controlled Russian news agency, also highlighted denials by the US and Lithuania that they were "formally" discussing deploying elements of the missile defence system in the Baltic state.

The US has previously made similar denials about formal negotiations with the UK over hosting missile interceptors, but it was later revealed that informal discussions had taken place.

[Frank Sheed]

For the life of me, I don't know why?

[PanzerKardinal]

Those commie rats bastard don’t really care about what we think when they sign a defense accord and sell weapons to Hugo “Nutjob” Chavez.

So why should we care what they think.

[RusIvan]

So why should we care what they think.==

Beacuse Russia may sell Chavez nuke for reciprocal of ABM.

[Tailgunner Joe]

Ooh, we're scared. Not.

Maybe we'll just give nukes to our NATO allies in Lithuania.

[Mr Inviso]

Good. Since they appear to be playing games to make us “nervous” of late, time they got some back at ‘em.

[RusIvan]

Good. Since they appear to be playing games to make us “nervous” of late, time they got some back at ‘em.==

Remember it was USA who started this. So all the responsibility is yours.

[Tailgunner Joe]

What matters isn’t who started it, Ivan, it’s who finishes it.

[Mr Inviso]

Started what? the sending of bombers and such into other countries airspace? Can’t see that we’ve done that much since the end of the Cold War. The saber-rattling and threatening cutting off other countries’ energy supplies? Suuure, buddy.

[1COUNTER-MORTER-68]

Bump Dat...

[RusIvan]

What matters isn’t who started it, Ivan, it’s who finishes it.==

Right. But later you will count the costs. Just like with Iraqi war. Hence you will be very interested who to blame for such poor endeavor.

Russian proverb says: ‘Don’t boast going to battle just boast after battle”.

[RusIvan]

Started what? ==

Starting enthreaten Russia by deploying your weaponry near her border. Starting to disrupt peace by such actions. So the consequances is your responsibility.

[piasa]

If anything it started when the USSR started put all of its neighbors including Lithuania under Moscow's yoke, and then kept them there at the point of a gun. If Russia had been a better neighbor instead of an oppressor and invader it wouldn't have much to fear from armed democratic neighbors and everything to gain, but the Russians burned so many potential allies that now their phobic little selves are assuming the only countries in the world that aren't out to get Russia are Cuba, Venezuela, North Korea, Zimbabwe and Iran.

That alone is advertisement that tells the world Russia's not quite right in the head.

[Mr Inviso]

Except that our weaponry isn’t “deployed” near Russia’s borders. If there’s any of “our” equipment there, it’s because it’s been sold to Poland and the other countries there. The troops we have there are at the request of the host countries. Quite different than how Russia (Then Soviet) used to do it, I might add. Now, why might those countries want US troops and equipment to be stationed there?
If you have any notions that we’re going to invade, you’re paranoid beyond help. We havent had any such intentions, and have nowhere near the numbers.

[RusIvan]

Except that our weaponry isn’t “deployed” near Russia’s borders. ==

The new bases in Bulgaria and Romania. The plans to deploy new ABM missiles in Poland. Did you forget?\

Now, why might those countries want US troops and equipment to be stationed there?==

Beacuse they are paranoid of cause. We have no intentions to invade them.

We havent had any such intentions, and have nowhere near the numbers.==

And we should take your word on it right?:) Then first take mine on same matter. Look above.

[RusIvan]

If Russia had been a better neighbor instead of an oppressor and invader it wouldn’t have much to fear from armed democratic neighbors and everything to gain, but the Russians burned so many potential allies that now their phobic little selves are assuming the only countries in the world that aren’t out to get Russia are Cuba, Venezuela, North Korea, Zimbabwe and Iran. ==

Who you talk about? Maybe Poland or Germany? Or Baltic countries? Until Russia didn’t compell those countries they created so many wars on our westren border that I have not enough fingers on my palms to count then all.
Now we let them go what they did next? Just joined the opposite military block which is potential threat to Russia. From our point of view they do not change and just continuing thir old policies to endanger russian border so our answer will be the same. We will undermine thier security same way they undermine ours.

[Mr Inviso]

“Except that our weaponry isn’t “deployed” near Russia’s borders. ==

The new bases in Bulgaria and Romania. The plans to deploy new ABM missiles in Poland. Did you forget?\

Now, why might those countries want US troops and equipment to be stationed there?==

Beacuse they are paranoid of cause. We have no intentions to invade them.

We havent had any such intentions, and have nowhere near the numbers.==

And we should take your word on it right?:) Then first take mine on same matter. Look above.”

Of course, the Russians have never invaded those countries before, now have they? It’s not paranoia when you already have examples of it happening, and not that long ago.

Now, let’s take Poland as a case study. It’s NOT EVEN ON RUSSIA’s border! Unless, of course, you consider Ukraine to still be part of Sov.. Errr. Russia.

ABM missiles are DEFENSIVE. That is what they exist for. Your country should know that, since they’ve had an ABM setup protecting Moscow for decades now, allowed under the former ABM treaty. Given the dozen missiles that are going to be there, they aren’t even a threat to Russia’s hundreds of ICBMS. Ask your scientists about that. Try to figure out how you’re going to shoot down hundreds with a dozen. We even offered to allow stationing Russian personnel on-site for verification. Now who is being paranoid?

We’ve ALWAYS allowed for verification of troop and equipment numbers as well. Something your country might consider doing. There’s also a fairly significant difference between being “stationed” and being “deployed”.

[dbehsman]

We should have nuked Moscow when we had the chance.

The world would have been a much better place.

[RusIvan]

ABM missiles are DEFENSIVE. That is what they exist for. Your country should know that, since they’ve had an ABM setup protecting Moscow for decades now, allowed under the former ABM treaty. Given the dozen missiles that are going to be there, they aren’t even a threat to Russia’s hundreds of ICBMS. Ask your scientists about that. Try to figure out how you’re going to shoot down hundreds with a dozen. We even offered to allow stationing Russian personnel on-site for verification. Now who is being paranoid?==

Read my tagline. Of cause dozen ABM missiles will not stop hundreds of ICBMs but if you consider the first strike scenario on Russia? In that case the russian reciprocal will be reduced greatly so dozen ABMs may make the change.

Now you will assure me that you are never ever planning the first strike on Russia. I from start believe that you sencire believe that you are right. But anyways it is very lame chances considering the past.

Remember Drop Shot plan of 1950th? Other thing just read the post of your compatriot here:http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2033356/posts “We should have nuked Moscow when we had the chance.”
So still in America there are someone who dreams to nuke us if he had the chance. That is the prove that Russia should prepare to everything and have the might to destroy any aggressor at any scenario.

[Mr Inviso]

Yes, we had plans to do things like that, BACK THEN. Then again SO DID YOU. That was before SLBMs, which both of us have in quantity. That was before MIRVs, ditto. We’re still both at the point where, yes, we can roast each other, and pretty much make the rest of the world a mess, too. A dozen missile interceptors still won’t make a bit of difference against the current (START II) limit of over 1000 warheads on each side.

So, your 100 missile interceptors are OK, but our 30, counting Vandenberg, Greeley, and the not-yet-built Polish site are de-stabilizing? Interesting logic there.

I never said we weren’t planning the strike, just not planning to do it. We have planners that sit and plan strikes on England, too. Doesn’t mean their plans are going to do anything but sit on a shelf. You have similar planners that sit and map plans on your friends AND your enemies, because it’s always wise to have a plan, even if you never really intend on using it.

As far as the clowns here who say we should have done something. I’m sure there are plenty of guys who wish Russia were still Communist, and think they should have done in the US when THEY had the chance too. There is no shortage of idiots on either side.

As far as paranoia goes, read about Exercise Able Archer sometime, and how close YOUR side came to starting it accidentally, because they misread what we were doing.