Welcome back to the cold war: Russia threatens Poland with nukes.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/georgia/2564639/Russian-general-says-Poland-a-nuclear-target-as-Condoleezza-Rice-arrives-in-Georgia.html

I suppose it is unsurprising, given that Putin is ex-KGB.

It's too easy to knock Muslims around. We need a REAL enemy so we can feel the fear again!

it morphed into what we are facing today...two tightly controlled capitalist societies trying to control the supply of oil and natural gas. it`s the same cast of actors with a different play

resident George Bush: Well, I don't think any single event is the end of what you might call the Iron Curtain, but clearly this is a long way from the harshest Iron Curtain days -- a long way from that.

. . . .

Our objective is a Europe whole and free. And is it a step towards that? I would say yes. Gorbachev talks about a common home. Is it a step towards that? Probably so.

. . . .

President George Bush: He's (Gorbachev) already expressed his interest in a common European home. We've phrased it differently. We've said a Europe whole and free. And when you see citizens wanting to go and flee what has been an oppressive society, clearly that is a message that Mr. Gorbachev will understand. He sees it not only in Eastern Europe, but he sees it inside the Soviet Union. And so, we'll have a good, lively -- before these developments took place, I have said that we would be discussing the rapid change inside Eastern Europe. And we've been talking about that today, just before you all came in here. We've been talking about the Gorbachev meeting. And one of the things that we are determined we will discuss, and I know he'll want to discuss, is this change.

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/cold.war/episodes/23/documents/bush/

What Bush's father did, Bush and his friend, McCain, shall undo. They seem to forget that what goes up can (and usually does) come down. Peace takes a lot of work -- too much for the Neocons.

Mind you, Putin is made of the same cloth as Bush. They are both intent on regaining power that they believe that their fathers or their father's generation gave away. Remember, if George Herbert Walker Bush's dream of a truly free Europe became reality, our presence would no longer be justified in Germany and other areas of Europe. The same is true for Russia. If Ossetia and Georgia began to live in peace (just one example of problems near the Russian border) then Russian troops would have no excuse to be amassed at its border.

And if peace and an open society really happened, people all over Europe wouldn't be afraid anymore, an then people like Putin and Bush would not retain their power. They would just be set aside like an old toy gun. Europe would have outgrown them. They could not bear to have that happen.

Someone is making a lot of money off the installation of the military equipment in Poland. Do you think they want to lose the chance to profit like that?

I always wondered why Rice, an expert on the USSR, was selected for NSA and then Secretary of State right when we were trying to establish peace and freedom across Europe. Iraq out of the way, Europe is the next ground for making money from arms exports.

truculent dumb-asses. The post-communist Polish government has been so far to the right that one suspects they all have rabies. Imagine if Canada made a deal with Russia to put up an anti-missile system. Oh, and imagine the Canadians had the attitude towards us that Hugo Chavez does.

We are descending straight into hell. And its our side that always takes the first step (Georgia, now Poland). The Russians are merely playing tit-for-tat. They have no choice. To do otherwise would be to lose.

arendt

and the PNAC? That quest to secure a permanent dominance over the world doesn't seem to be working out too good. But then, maybe it is.

The Russians are not "playing tit for tat"; the cause of the problem is Russian nationalism, not the behaviour of the West.

There was never any prospect of Georgia invading Russia.

The reason Russia objected to the West selling weapons to Georgia is because it risked making it harder for them to invade it (as they have now done).

That's hardly a provocation.

which has been under Russian protection for FIFTEEN YEARS. If not for the intransigence of the West, this de facto independence would have been recognized. The West recognizes such events only when it suits their purpose, like in Kosovo.

As it was, the Georgians DID invade another independent country with those weapons. The Russians, who were peacekeepers, were attacked and defended themselves. Like any decent army, the Russians had a contingency plan and they executed it. The U.S. is for "pre-emptive war". The Russians were polite enough to wait until attacked. Then they taught the Georgians a lesson.

The neocons preach their right to dictate to the rest of the world with military force (Iraq, threats to Iran). But they get all angry when someone beats them back.

----

Further, about the weapons. I have seen estimates of $1B of weapons (not sure if this is per year, but it was compared to a $30 M estimate, which sounds per year). If that is true, it represents an expenditure of 1B/5M = $2,000 per capita per year. According to Wikipedia, Georgia has a per capita GNP of about $4,500/year. So, Georgia is spending almost 50% of its GNP on weapons. And this while instituting the standard set of inequality-producing neoliberal economic doctrines.

----

Georgia is just another neocon hellhole.

arendt

In the West or otherwise.

and the International NON-Recognition of it, Russia decided to prepare itself, obviously. They warned us in 1992, with the first referendum, again in 2006 afte the second, and again this year after the recognition of Kosovo's independence from Serbia. They said that they would support the independence of BOTH South Ossetia and Abkhazia from Georgia.

From what I have been reading this week, apparently part of the Russian-Georgian peace deal was for the Russians to provide "neutral" peacekeeping troops and combat engineers to fix two railway lines. They did so and prepared well. As soon as their peacekeepers were attacked last week, they loaded 1200 tanks onto flatbed railcars and had them shipped to the new railheads within 12 hours - completely surprising the Georgians and their US military advisors.

Like it or not - South Ossetian and Abkhazian independence is now a fact.

to turn of MSM who are pushing the *ush line.

South Ossettia is a province of Georgia. It's been under partial Russian occupation for a while; Georgia just attempted to rebel invaders.

There may well be a case makeable for a democratic process leading to Ossetian independence. There is no possible case for Russian annexation of Georgian territory by force, which is what has been happening.

I agree that the government of Georgia leaves a lot to be desired; it is, however, a hell of a lot better than the Russian government.

S. O. has been under Russian occupation for 90% of the time that Georgia has been independent. The people of S. Ossetia do not like Georgians. There is no indication that the Russians are annexing Georgia. That is your hysterical interjection. They are occupying a war zone until they feel the threat is gone.

And, finally, the Georgians made a sneak-attack that could not possibly have been done without the full approval of the Cheney administration, who had Karl Rove meet with S-vili while he was dodging a Congressional subpoena. This is nothing but further war-mongering by the neocons.

Your willingness to completely ignore the context here, while spouting the party line, is as bad as the old Soviets.

How is it I had never heard of you at DU until this crisis came up, anyhow?

arendt

I didn't say the Russians were annexing Georgia, I said they were annexing Georgian territory - South Ossettia and Abkhasia.

I don't feel the need to support that "assertion", any more than I feel the need to support the assertion that the sky is blue - it's a matter of public record and international law.

Of course Georgia could have done this without US approval; I don't know whether they did or not, but I think it very probable that they did and there's no evidence that they didn't - the fact that an official in the US government once met the Georgian president is not evidence of a conspiracy...

If by "party line", you mean that I'm agreeing with the vast majority of people across the political spectrum except a few mad people on DU who think that anything Bush is against must be good, then yes.

> I don't feel the need to support that "assertion", any more than I feel the
> need to support the assertion that the sky is blue

> If by "party line", you mean that I'm agreeing with the vast majority of people
> across the political spectrum except a few mad people on DU who think that
> anything Bush is against must be good, then yes.

Wow! You managed to assert a strawman right after you said that you don't need to justify your assertions. That takes real chutzpah. I will skip over the personal insult (a few mad people on DU) and discuss just who you are to be making such assertions.

Yes. I believe your stats. However, I repeat, I have never seen your posts before this. I looked at your journal; its thin, scattershot, and worrying. My journal has over a hundred essays. You can tell where I stand from my journal. You can't tell anything from yours.



You defend Joe Lieberman, attack Hugo Chavez, write "In praise of hatred". Oh, and your not even an Democrat, or an American. But I'm supposed to take your assertions at face value. Right.

What's that you say? You have a million dollars in a bank account in Nigeria for me, and all I have to do is write you a check?

Not a chance.

arendt

Everyone knows you can't trust forners...

That I don't have many posts in my journal? Or that my claim that "some DUers believe that anything Bush is against must be good" is a "strawman" (you keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means)...

If it's the former, then "so what" is all the answer I can give. I occasionally add a post to my journal when it's a subject I'm going to want to give my views on repeatedly, but my journal is there for my own use, not other people's.

If it's the latter, then I refer you as evidence to this thread, and to e.g. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=3804485&mesg_id=3804485 , or any other on the Russian/Georgian conflict.

You will find dozens of posters who, again and again, bring up in context that makes it clear that they think it's one of the most important and relevant facts when deciding who is right and who is wrong, that Bush is pro-Georgia, and hence Russia is not doing anything wrong.

The strawman was your charge that

> I'm agreeing with the vast majority of people across the political spectrum
> except a few mad people on DU who think that anything Bush is against must
> be good, then yes.

This is a) an assertion; b) unprovable. Their are dozens of polls, most of them biased. To my knowledge, none of them has ever asked the question you posed. Show me a poll that says only "a few mad people on DU" think that Bush belongs in the Hague, and if Russia put him there, they wouldn't complain.

----

The constant use of cutouts, proxies, and black propaganda (up to and including false flag operations) by the neocons and their corporate media makes it difficult to be nuanced about a war thousands of miles away - because the nuances of the dirty tricks in play here would fill a phone book. Nevertheless, you manage to boil the nuance down to fit your idee fixe:

> You will find dozens of posters who, again and again, bring up in context that makes it clear that they think
> it's one of the most important and relevant facts when deciding who is right and who is wrong,Bush is pro-
> Georgia, and hence Russia is not doing anything wrong.

I am not responsible for what other people say. I am responsible for what I say. (And yes, I said "the enemy of my enemy is my friend". ) Tell me the U.S. government has not operated that way for the last sixty years, backing every dictator in sight to oppose communism and labor movements. Since I'm not a goverment, but an individual, this is just a saying - akin to "don't throw the baby out with the bathwater". Its not a policy statement or a blank check of support to everyone in the world who hates Bush.

I have said that the Russians are as brutal as the Georgians. But, in this particular case, the Georgians struck first, the neocons and the media, and Bush are lying for them and supporting them. I'm also factoring 15 years of pushing NATO up to the Russian border, and constant diplomatic insults, like Kosovar independence (which is directly analogous to S. Ossetia). The Russians have been pushed, and had the patience to wait until the provocation was obvious before they struck back. I'm not deciding based on my dislike of Bush; I'm deciding based on who struck first and then lied about it.

arendt

When the Georgians start trying to ethnically cleanse Kosovo entirely, using massing killings, rape camps etc, then I'll support a Russian invasion of it. That the Russians took the indepence of Kosovo as an insult is evidence of Russia's contempt for human rights, not of Western wrongdoing.

"The US has done it too" is only a defence if, on those occasions, you defended the actions of the US. If, as I suspect, you condemned them, then if you don't similarly condemn Russia then you're a hypocrite.

Saying "the Russians are as brutal as the Georgians" is like saying "an elephant is as big as a cow".

What started this war was a foolish but perfectly justifiable Georgian response to Russian provocation.

I'm afraid that the fact that you keep bringing up American actions as though they are relevant to this make me disbelieve your claim that your judgement is not biased by your dislike of Bush.

The Georgians massacred over 1% of the S.O. population. They shot up a hospital. The attacked city had no military targets nor army units in it.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1012157.html

Want to spin this one? A Jewish guy accuses the Georgians of genocide.

You are nothing but a propagandist.

arendt

That the Russians are accusing the Georgians of genocide doesn't surprise me in the least; that this guy is Jewish doesn't make him credible.

Saakashvili is just another Milosevic trying to get away with genocide. Problem is Russia was already on to his game. If Kosovo can break away from Serbia, then South Ossetia and Abkhazia reserve that same right vis a vis Georgia.

On another note, the world's most famous Georgian, Iosef Dzugashvili aka Stalin, was responsible for murdering millions of Russians along with his Georgian sidekick, Lavrenty Beria.

Some of the West's actions play into Russian chauvinism, but it was palpable in '90 and '91. The west was Russia's enemy, the "ethnic groups" betrayed the virtuous Russians. We rigged the downfall of the USSR to humiliate and crush the Russians.

And we failed. The Russian spirit is vigorous, strong, and great.

Then it got weird. Best-sellers claiming that Churchill and FDR signed a pact with Hitler to invade Russia, duping Stalin; they didn't attack Germany until it was clear that Hitler was going to lose against Russia and then did so to punish Hitler and keep Russia from conquering more of Europe than it did.

Conspiratorial views that would make your hair curl.

But you have to look at trash literature, pop culture for the lumpenproletariat to find it. You look at the educated classes, the kind you meet on exchange programs, the kind of people that visit the US, and you don't see it, at least not much. They don't talk about it, if they buy into the paranoia, unless you get them sufficiently drunk or bring it up yourself. (I've done both, and even teachers and professors sometimes accept this kind of view.) It's most common among younger working class men. Lots of those in Russia. Even when they go to college, they're still working class men in outlook.

And that's a large component of Putin's true base. The kinds of kids given hope by belonging to Nashi, Putin's "Young Pioneer" knock-off, replete with Putin camps and Putin shirts and Putin cheers, camps that feature video presentation by Putin on how to make Russia strong so it won't be humiliated and will be restored to its proper greatness. Those kids are now hitting their 30s. Combined with other groups that are older--including the elderly, esp. veterans--Putin's popular. But for all the kinds of reasons that we'd find distasteful in this country; comparing much of what's done with what * has done is like comparing chickens with ostriches.

But Zjuganov and Zhirinovskij were there first. Just not proper, not sophisticated enough. A bit too populist, and sometimes a throw-back. Fighting the Oligarchs--and instating the siloviki as governmental oligarchs--worked much better.

Now, pushing NATO up to Russia's border didn't help. It was enough to convince those who wouldn't be sufficiently paranoid to be paranoid. Having the resentment towards the Poles, Lithuanians, Estonians, etc., so close to the surface made their disloyalty equivalent to being traitors. Having Russians "oppressed" by not having the upper hand in the Baltics, in Central Asia, was humiliating--they gave so much for the lesser races, and now good Russians need to learn ... Latvian? The horror of it all. They're removing the memorial to the unknown (Russian) soldier? Ingrates--we demand respect.

This worked in the '20s and '30s in Europe and Russia. It works now, in Russia, as the country's population implodes.

It was our intention after the collapse of Communism to OWN Russia. We moved in with Shock Doctrine economics and set up the gangster oligarchs right on their territory. We bankrupted their retirement system. We kept NATO in being, even though its reason for existence had vanished. Then we encouraged former East Bloc countries AND parts of the the former SU to join NATO.

Provocation after provocation. Theft piled upon theft.

We knew exactly what we were doing. We put gangsters in charge; and the only Russians who could get rid of them were worse gangsters. Now you expect me to cozy up to a new set of crappy neocon gangsters, like Shaakashvili and the ultra-right Polish leadership (who hate the Russians as much as you worry the Russians hate us), and start a new war with the Russians.

This is a worldview where diplomacy means "unconditional surrender". You will argue that we have no choice. I will reply that it was our choice to brutalize the Russians. Now we are just getting the karma.

We had a chance to break the circle of violence; we chose not to. That doesn't excuse the Russians. It doesn't excuse us either.

arendt

Seriesly!!!111!!!

Those damn stupid ass Poles making decisions of their own! How DARE they tempt the mighty power that is RUSSIA!!!!!

Putin, is that you?

That's what makes life interesting! And thanks for the welcome! :hi:

arendt

Guess I need say no more.
BHN

However, I have learned to distrust the source cited in the OP, and the many I found after a quick Google.

The Russians are likely pushing back against our threats and vice versa, but the Telegraph is not to be trusted at all.

It's opinion-pieces are unashamedly RW, and make no pretence at being otherwise, but the quality of its factual reporting is reasonably high.

How would the US react if Russia placed missiles near our country?

They are ABMs. They are supposedly supposed to guard Europe against a missile attack by a "rogue state" (Iran). Whether or not you believe that's an actual threat or whether or not you think it would actually work, the fact remains that we only plan to install a battery of about 20 ABMs. That would only protect against a small attack by a relatively weakly armed nuclear state. So, given the fact that the Russians have thousands of missiles and warheads, even assuming a 100% success rate of this battery, that would leave them with, well, thousands of more missiles to fire at whoever they may wish after we're out of ABMs.

Therefore, it is *not* a threat to Russia, as they are defensive in nature and do not seriously dent Russia's nuclear deterrent. Russia is only getting mad about this because they see it as a step into their sphere by outsiders and another sign that they have lost their control over E. Europe. If you ask me, that's just something they should learn to deal with instead of threatening a sovereign state with a nuclear attack over strictly defensive weapons.

which is why I think Russia is overreacting to the whole situation and being disrespectful of Poland by the comments their general made today.

that they build a Great Wall on the Polish/Russian border. It would be no more effective than ABM's and would make the Russians mad. (Wait. Maybe the Russians would laugh at such foolish expenditure of resources that does nothing to enhance Poland's security. Probably not if they can't smirk at the waste of resources on a joke of an ABM system.)

He said basing an anti-missile system in your country would make you a target in event of war. That's not necessarily a threat, just a fact.

This may be :tinfoilhat: Georgie's goodbye gift. As you must know, she's a USSR expert. Oh yes. She lives for the cold war. It's why she never believed in terrorism-it doesn't fit what she learned in her think tank education.

The Russian Bear is really turning into the "Bad Idea Bear". "Hey, kids! Wouldn't it be fun to provoke a war with Russia three months before the election?"

==================
GROVELBOT.EXE v4.1
==================



This week is our third quarter 2008 fund drive. Democratic Underground is
a completely independent website. We depend on donations from our members
to cover our costs. Please take a moment to donate! Thank you!

wanted to put nukes in the middle of Europe! How would YOU feel if Russia made a deal with Cuba to put nukes THERE? Not too happy, huh?

It wouldn't surprise me if he had wanted to put nukes in the middle of Europe (there are already nukes in the middle of Europe, owned by the Europeans...), but I haven't heard of it.

to world media says volumes about Russia today. Hardliners are taking back what little democratic freedoms that were won during the fall of the USSR.

cold war back to keep his presidential power at a maximum. They are also under the impression that war and the fear of war will help Republicans. It may not work this election cycle.