|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
madcap
Joined: 04 Dec 2006
Location: Gangneung, Korea
|
 Posted: Tue Jul 17, 2007 9:44 pm Post subject: Russians pull out of NATO treaty |
 |
|
So I'm heading to work with one of my Korean teachers the other day and she's listening to one of those radio shows that help you learn English. The headline is about Russia pulling out of the Conventional Forces in Europe treaty and they are making it sound like a big deal. (I don't know that it's the start of a new Cold War, like I've heard some people say, but it could be a small step that leads up to something bigger, but I digress) So I get to school and I have a little free time and want to know more about it, so I pop on Yahoo news look around for it in world news. Nothing. I specify Russian news. Nothing. I try BBC. Nothing. CNN. Nothing. Now I'm starting to wonder if it was older news, but the more I thought about it, the more I realized that it couldn't be because they were talking about Bush rejecting Russias offer to use the radar stations in Azerbajan, which was pretty recent. Finally today, I do a search on Yahoo news again (OK, I realize that Yahoo is far from the best news source, but it's convenient) and I finally find it. It's not listed under Russian news, I actually had to do a web search for articles on NATO-Russia and CFE. Even after doing a search I couldn't find it on the other sites. The thing is, yesterday I had a couchsurfer from Germany stay at my place and she was saying that it was headline news in Europe (or at least in Holland and Germany). What's up with that? She was shocked when she realized that I had barely heard about it. Is this one of those stories that they just bury because they don't want us to know about it? And if so, why? I realize I don't use the best news sources (I'd love to know where everyone else gets theirs. I usually use the Daily Show, but it's been on a two week break so I'm behind. Again, not the best, but I'll trust it over Fox, NBC, CNN, BBC anyday). Tell me what you think. Why are they hiding this story? Or did everyone else hear about this and I'm just inept?
Here is a link to the article I finally found:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070716/wl_nm/russia_cfe_nato_dc_1 |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Big_Bird
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Alyallen
Joined: 29 Mar 2004
Location: The 4th Greatest Place on Earth = Jeonju!!!
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 17, 2007 10:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Damn...
I was surfing the news and I didn't see anything about that. To be fair, International news seemed to be focused on that horrific plane crash in Brazil. At least it was this morning... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
madcap
Joined: 04 Dec 2006
Location: Gangneung, Korea
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 17, 2007 10:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Yeah, but this was last friday. And I don't know about British news, but, like I said, I checked BBC and I couldn't find it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Alyallen
Joined: 29 Mar 2004
Location: The 4th Greatest Place on Earth = Jeonju!!!
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 17, 2007 11:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| madcap wrote: |
| Yeah, but this was last friday. And I don't know about British news, but, like I said, I checked BBC and I couldn't find it. |
 LAST FRIDAY 
How in the hell did I miss this  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 17, 2007 11:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The Russians I think are a little tired of being treated like an historical footnote. They crave their old super power status. They supply massive amounts of Europe's energy these days but, I think, feel like they're not accorded the respect they think they deserve, not being consulted by the US/UK on global issues. There was a time when the USA didn't feel it had a free hand in much of Africa, Asia, and Eastern Europe. It always had to think "what would the soviets think?"
So a bunch of saber rattling. "Hey, we're an energy super power, we're the largest country in the world, we're still a nuclear power! Pay attention!"
Not saying the Russians are right in any of this. But I think that's how they see themselves. Anyway, look at is as foreshadowing when China develops a blue water navy and a real space program. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
madcap
Joined: 04 Dec 2006
Location: Gangneung, Korea
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 18, 2007 5:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| bump |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
safeblad
Joined: 17 Jul 2006
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 18, 2007 6:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| i think the general idea is that its not a big deal and wont effect actual foreign and defence policy, they are just doing it to piss people off because of the whole star wars and expelled diplomats in the uk thing |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jhaelin
Joined: 30 Aug 2006
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 18, 2007 6:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mindmetoo wrote: |
The Russians I think are a little tired of being treated like an historical footnote. They crave their old super power status. They supply massive amounts of Europe's energy these days but, I think, feel like they're not accorded the respect they think they deserve, not being consulted by the US/UK on global issues. There was a time when the USA didn't feel it had a free hand in much of Africa, Asia, and Eastern Europe. It always had to think "what would the soviets think?"
So a bunch of saber rattling. "Hey, we're an energy super power, we're the largest country in the world, we're still a nuclear power! Pay attention!"
Not saying the Russians are right in any of this. But I think that's how they see themselves. Anyway, look at is as foreshadowing when China develops a blue water navy and a real space program. |
i don't think Russia is rattling any sabers but rather saying to the US that these continued aggressive moves will not be ignored.
specifically, they are responding to the missile defense shield which the US and Nato are trying to set up in Poland and Czech Republic under the ridiculous guise of protecting Europe from terrorist/rogue state missile attack.
the reason it's off the media radar in the States is that if there was any sort balanced coverage on this issue it would quickly become clear how aggressive the US is being towards Russia. for instance, Russia responded to the supposed need for missile defense shield by proposing a joint shield program based in Azerbaijan, which is a considerably better location for defending possible attacks from the middle east (compared to czech/poland).
but, the refusal for this joint project by the US and the insistence to continue with the shield development in eastern europe can only be viewed as missile defense against Russia and not supposed terrorist/rogue state attacks.
| Quote: |
| The Bush administration is trying to achieve what nuclear weapons specialist, Francis A. Boyle, calls the �longstanding US policy of nuclear first-strike against Russia �. By placing weapons systems and radar on Russia �s borders the US will have a critical advantage that will disrupt the essential balance of power. This is forcing Putin to restart the arms race. |
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=6289
| Quote: |
| Oops ... Better send that press release back to the Pentagon's Office of Deception Propaganda for a rewrite. The Iran missile threat to NATO installations in Poland somehow isn't quite convincing. Why not ask longtime NATO member Turkey if the US can place its missile shield there, far closer to Iran? Or maybe Kuwait? Or Israel? |
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Central_Asia/IC01Ag01.html
| Quote: |
| Russians point out that ever since December 13, 2001, when President George W Bush announced that the US was unilaterally pulling out of the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty, Washington has followed a consistent pattern of deploying along Russian borders radars capable of spotting missile launches and sending targeting data to interceptors. (The first such radar, code-named Have Stare, was stationed in Norway.) |
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Central_Asia/ID28Ag01.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 18, 2007 7:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| jhaelin wrote: |
| mindmetoo wrote: |
The Russians I think are a little tired of being treated like an historical footnote. They crave their old super power status. They supply massive amounts of Europe's energy these days but, I think, feel like they're not accorded the respect they think they deserve, not being consulted by the US/UK on global issues. There was a time when the USA didn't feel it had a free hand in much of Africa, Asia, and Eastern Europe. It always had to think "what would the soviets think?"
So a bunch of saber rattling. "Hey, we're an energy super power, we're the largest country in the world, we're still a nuclear power! Pay attention!"
Not saying the Russians are right in any of this. But I think that's how they see themselves. Anyway, look at is as foreshadowing when China develops a blue water navy and a real space program. |
i don't think Russia is rattling any sabers but rather saying to the US that these continued aggressive moves will not be ignored.
specifically, they are responding to the missile defense shield which the US and Nato are trying to set up in Poland and Czech Republic under the ridiculous guise of protecting Europe from terrorist/rogue state missile attack.
the reason it's off the media radar in the States is that if there was any sort balanced coverage on this issue it would quickly become clear how aggressive the US is being towards Russia. for instance, Russia responded to the supposed need for missile defense shield by proposing a joint shield program based in Azerbaijan, which is a considerably better location for defending possible attacks from the middle east (compared to czech/poland).
but, the refusal for this joint project by the US and the insistence to continue with the shield development in eastern europe can only be viewed as missile defense against Russia and not supposed terrorist/rogue state attacks.
|
I disagree with Jhaelin, as usual.
The missile defense shield is not the real issue. The real issues are the many color revolutions the US has supported in Russia's spheres of influence, and American support for Kosovar independence.
I think Jhaelin also misses the geopolitical importance should US change its missile defense plans in accordance with Russia's wishes. The US has already hammered out compromises with members of Eastern Europe, not a few of which have strained relations with Russia themselves. The US cannot simply go back on its obligations with Poland and the Czech Republic without damaging relations with those countries, especially not if the US is doing so to comply with Russian wishes. The Azerbaijan suggestion is very clever on Putin's part, because he gets to appear concilliatory and reasonable as he puts the US in a sticky spot.
But the very suggestion is actually vengeance for the color revolutions and particularly America's recent support for an independent Kosovo. Russia is not really threatened by the anti-missile shield because A) Russian nuclear weapon strike capacity far outweighs any countermeasures the US could come up with right now, and B) any nuclear exchange between the US and Russia would occur across the Arctic, not over Europe and the Atlantic. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jhaelin
Joined: 30 Aug 2006
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 18, 2007 8:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
I think Jhaelin also misses the geopolitical importance should US change its missile defense plans in accordance with Russia's wishes. The US has already hammered out compromises with members of Eastern Europe, not a few of which have strained relations with Russia themselves. The US cannot simply go back on its obligations with Poland and the Czech Republic without damaging relations with those countries, especially not if the US is doing so to comply with Russian wishes. The Azerbaijan suggestion is very clever on Putin's part, because he gets to appear concilliatory and reasonable as he puts the US in a sticky spot.
But the very suggestion is actually vengeance for the color revolutions and particularly America's recent support for an independent Kosovo. Russia is not really threatened by the anti-missile shield because A) Russian nuclear weapon strike capacity far outweighs any countermeasures the US could come up with right now, and B) any nuclear exchange between the US and Russia would occur across the Arctic, not over Europe and the Atlantic. |
it seems that the default response for criticism of many US policies is often rooted in the supposed importance of maintaining "obligations" to allied countries, be it Poland, Czech, Iraq, Kuwait, S. Korea, etc. etc....
while from a different perspective it can be viewed that supposed "obligation" to an ally is actually double speak for justifying aggressive US policies and interests.
my simple question to you would be what is the benefit of a missile defense shield in Eastern Europe (Poland and Czech)? as these systems are more effective at the source of the missile threat,
wouldn't protecting US allies in europe from terrorist/rogue state attacks be better served at the source of these possible attacks.
wouldn't these systems better serve NATO members from terrorist/rogue state attack by being placed closer to the possible source: i.e. middle east, iran, afghanistan, pakistan, etc.????????
in being place in Poland and Czech Rep. aren't these systems being placed closest to the actual perceived source of missile attack....Russia.
how would the US respond, if Russia suggested maintaining "obligations" to protect allies from terrorist attack by placing missile and radar systems near the US border (for example, Venezuela or Cuba)? LOL
i think we all learned in school what can happen...
your argument that the color revolutions are viewed as a greater threat to Russia than a missile defense system in their front yard sounds weak. especially considering that the supposed success and importance of these revolutions are debatable. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 18, 2007 8:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| jhaelin wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
I think Jhaelin also misses the geopolitical importance should US change its missile defense plans in accordance with Russia's wishes. The US has already hammered out compromises with members of Eastern Europe, not a few of which have strained relations with Russia themselves. The US cannot simply go back on its obligations with Poland and the Czech Republic without damaging relations with those countries, especially not if the US is doing so to comply with Russian wishes. The Azerbaijan suggestion is very clever on Putin's part, because he gets to appear concilliatory and reasonable as he puts the US in a sticky spot.
But the very suggestion is actually vengeance for the color revolutions and particularly America's recent support for an independent Kosovo. Russia is not really threatened by the anti-missile shield because A) Russian nuclear weapon strike capacity far outweighs any countermeasures the US could come up with right now, and B) any nuclear exchange between the US and Russia would occur across the Arctic, not over Europe and the Atlantic. |
it seems that the default response for criticism of many US policies is often rooted in the supposed importance of maintaining "obligations" to allied countries, be it Poland, Czech, Iraq, Kuwait, S. Korea, etc. etc....
while from a different perspective it can be viewed that supposed "obligation" to an ally is actually double speak for justifying aggressive US policies and interests. |
It seems that the default response for any perceived support of any US policies is often rooted in the supposed threat of American moves to protect itself to other countries in the world, while from a different perspective it can be viewed that the supposed "threat" to another country is actually a false premise to cheerlead and ballyhoo the largest power in the world merely out of envy.
I would prefer not to read into each other's statements in this way because its not exactly fun the hundreth time around, and I've been on these forums too long to get into the n-thousandth impassioned bitch-match over a topic with minimal impact on my daily life.
I italicized perceived because I am actually annoyed with Bush's foreign policy stance with Russia as well, because I think he is jeopordizing a relationship with an important power so Bush can play Don Quixote with Democracy in Eastern Europe and Central Asia.
| jhaelin wrote: |
my simple question to you would be what is the benefit of a missile defense shield in Eastern Europe (Poland and Czech)? as these systems are more effective at the source of the missile threat,
wouldn't protecting US allies in europe from terrorist/rogue state attacks be better served at the source of these possible attacks.
wouldn't these systems better serve NATO members from terrorist/rogue state attack by being placed closer to the possible source: i.e. middle east, iran, afghanistan, pakistan, etc.????????
your argument that the color revolutions are viewed as a greater threat to Russia than a missile defense system in their front yard sounds weak. especially considering that the supposed success and importance of these revolutions are debatable. |
To answer your simple question, I think Azerbaijan would not have been a bad placement for the missile system, and the Russian suggestion might have been more welcome and in better faith had it been proposed from the very beginning. Admittedly, US-Russian relations have not been the best of the late, and while a lot of it goes to Bush's contemptuous treatment of Russia (which is assuredly different from a directly menacing treatment), we should not be surprised to see the days of Yeltsin playing lap-dog to Clinton well behind us.
If I may direct to you my own question: given that Russia has presumably the world's second most sophisticated nuclear arsenal and delivery system, with the ability to hit the US from the Arctic or the Bering Straight, or even very possibly from submarines hidden in the Atlantic well under the shield, in what way should Russia feel by this agreement made by the US with Poland and the Czech Republic?
Personally, if I were Putin, I would have been extremely vexed by the color revolutions. The non-violent movements in Ukraine, Georgia, and Kyrgyzstan threaten the Russian Empire, and if Chechnya proves nothing else, then it is that Russia still remains an Empire extended over foreign peoples, by encouraging democracy, liberalism, and stronger Western ties.
The very spectre of NATO extending to Russia's borders (or the EU for that matter) following the Orange Revolution certainly troubled Putin very much.
However, I also assert that Russia is very troubled by the independence of Kosovo, because it would establish a nasty precedent. Russia backed Milosevic when Clinton bombed Serbia over the breakaway province. It was not happy then, and is certainly not pleased now. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jhaelin
Joined: 30 Aug 2006
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 18, 2007 10:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
If I may direct to you my own question: given that Russia has presumably the world's second most sophisticated nuclear arsenal and delivery system, with the ability to hit the US from the Arctic or the Bering Straight, or even very possibly from submarines hidden in the Atlantic well under the shield, in what way should Russia feel by this agreement made by the US with Poland and the Czech Republic?
|
the same question could have been asked: why during the sixties did the US feel additionally threatened by the presence of missiles in Cuba when there were already enough missiles for mutually assured destruction?
evidently that slight advantage of decreased warning time for a first strike was enough of an issue to lead to the crises in the sixties.
although it can be suggested that the Russian capabilities prevent complete effectiveness of any defense shield, the advantage it would provide (however slight) to a US first strike is also undeniable.
both these issues (Cuba & Poland/Czech) depend as much upon emotional/patriotic interests of security/sovereignty as to actual strategic military advantages.
in addition, no nation wants hostile weapon systems, especially new and ever-developing/evolving systems to be stationed in their front yard.
seen this way, some key actions of the Bush administration since the unilateral withdrawal from the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty have instigated a possible start to a new cold war and a new arms race.
is the missile defense in eastern europe worth the price of a new cold war, especially, when the said purpose of preventing terrorist/rogue state attacks can be better served in other accessible locations?
p.s. you're right
| Quote: |
| The very spectre of NATO extending to Russia's borders (or the EU for that matter) following the Orange Revolution certainly troubled Putin very much. |
but isn't the trouble for Putin of NATO friendly nations surrounding it, ultimately, military?
being surrounded by these nations are not threatening because they are free and democratic, it's because like Poland and Czech Republic they may start to host military installations targeted against Russia (i.e. missile defense systems). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 19, 2007 7:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| jhaelin wrote: |
but isn't the trouble for Putin of NATO friendly nations surrounding it, ultimately, military?
being surrounded by these nations are not threatening because they are free and democratic, it's because like Poland and Czech Republic they may start to host military installations targeted against Russia (i.e. missile defense systems). |
Well, I agree with that. Its the co-operation with the West that truly threatens Putin in the region, although I can't exactly see him celebrating the birth of every new democracy in the region, either. I can agree with what you're saying and also contend that Putin would like to extend his own influence within the old Soviet states.
I think the military co-operation between the US and Poland the Czech Republic rubs Putin the wrong way. Understandable.
I support the building of the missile shield, but I don't exactly know what meddling in Russia's immediate backyard earns us but a great power's enmity. I mean US behavior there has been contemptuous towards Russia. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 19, 2007 8:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The US was perfectly right to withdraw from the ABM treaty. It did not do anything for the US anymore.
Iran and North Korea are developing nuclear missiles the US has no obligation to leave itself open to attack. Sorry.
and the US will really fix Iran when the US puts weapons into space.
After the US does so then Iran's nuclear program will be next to worthless strategically. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
