ForumGarden

Scrat;998069 wrote: Looks like a good article BTS. I'll read it tomorrow, g'nite.


nite nite toots oops scrat

To be honest I don't see this as a military problem, but a failure of diplomacy. The West and Russia are going to actually increase cooperation and strengthen ties in the coming years, but at the moment the relationships have become very strained due mostly to the haughtiness of the Bush Administration when dealing with almost all foreign nations, the fears about the growing autocracy that is reemerging in Russia, and the naturally difficult questions that are still unresolved leading from the break up of the USSR and the desire of the European Nations that were in the USSR to join in an economic and political union with their European neighbours in the EU.

These were always going to create difficult situations, and both sides need to work hard to avoid diplomatic and political squabbles turning into open conflict. It is particularly encumbent on the EU to continue to talk to the Russians to ensure that the issues arising from the possible accession of nations like Ukraine, or the presence of the Russian enclave of Kaliningrad in the future don't spark serious conflict. The last thing that either Europe or Russia, or America need right now is a descent into outright hostility again, so I don't think that it will happen.

In any case, Russia is perfectly entitled to defend itself as it sees fit, it is a sovereign nation after all. If they want to redevelop their armed forces, it is their choice. Its vital that the EU and Russia agree to spheres of influence and start working to improve cooperation at all levels again. Also, most people in Europe (despite grumbling about certain aspects of American foreign policy) want to maintain the NATO alliance as its obviously served all those involved well over the years, and its in everyones interest to keep that alliance strong, perhaps with a larger European contribution to the hard-power aspect of the military alliance. Given the financial constraints on the US government now, its inevitable that the EU nations will have to spend more on their own defence, and its only right anyway.

Galbally;998076 wrote: To be honest I don't see this as a military problem, but a failure of diplomacy. The West and Russia are going to actually increase cooperation and strengthen ties in the coming years, but at the moment the relationships have become very strained due mostly to the haughtiness of the Bush Administration when dealing with almost all foreign nations, the fears about the growing autocracy that is reemerging in Russia, and the naturally difficult questions that are still unresolved leading from the break up of the USSR and the desire of the European Nations that were in the USSR to join in an economic and political union with their European neighbours in the EU.

These were always going to create difficult situations, and both sides need to work hard to avoid diplomatic and political squabbles turning into open conflict. It is particularly encumbent on the EU to continue to talk to the Russians to ensure that the issues arising from the possible accession of nations like Ukraine, or the presence of the Russian enclave of Kaliningrad in the future don't spark serious conflict. The last thing that either Europe or Russia, or America need right now is a descent into outright hostility again, so I don't think that it will happen.

In any case, Russia is perfectly entitled to defend itself as it sees fit, it is a sovereign nation after all. If they want to redevelop their armed forces, it is their choice. Its vital that the EU and Russia agree to spheres of influence and start working to improve cooperation at all levels again. Also, most people in Europe (despite grumbling about certain aspects of American foreign policy) want to maintain the NATO alliance as its obviously served all those involved well over the years, and its in everyones interest to keep that alliance strong, perhaps with a larger European contribution to the hard-power aspect of the military alliance. Given the financial constraints on the US government now, its inevitable that the EU nations will have to spend more on their own defence, and its only right anyway.


Thanks Galb, you saved from having to write all that. (You always write good stuff)

Scrat;998003 wrote: Hang on people!! This one is going to cost you!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7638356.stm

Russia to upgrade nuclear systems



Russia sees the US missile defence in central Europe as a threat

Russian President Dmitry Medvedev has announced plans to build a "guaranteed nuclear deterrent system", to be in place by 2020.

He said he wanted military chiefs to submit plans by December.

He called for a programme to build new nuclear submarines as well as "a system of aerospace defence".

The announcement comes just weeks after Russia accused the US of starting a new arms race by siting part of its missile defence shield in Poland.

"We must guarantee nuclear deterrence under various political and military conditions by 2020," Mr Medvedev told military commanders.

He said it was necessary to build "new types of armaments" and to "achieve dominance in airspace", according to quotes carried by the Itar-Tass news agency.





Q&A: US missile defence

Guide to planned US missile shield

"We plan to start serial production of warships, primarily nuclear-powered submarines carrying cruise missiles and multifunctional submarines," Mr Medvedev said.

"We will develop an aerospace defence system, as well," he added.

Russia's move would not change the balance of power, said US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.

She told Reuters: "The balance of power in terms of nuclear deterrence is not going to be affected by those measures."

She said the US nuclear deterrent was "capable" and "robust".

Moscow has repeatedly criticised the US for going ahead with plans for a missile defence shield, using rockets based in Poland and radar in the Czech Republic, saying it destabilises the strategic balance and builds "a ring of steel" around Russia.

Russia warned it would be "forced to react".

This, it seems, is Russia is showing its own determination to bolster its nuclear deterrent, says the BBC's defence correspondent, Caroline Wyatt.


Yep, all that and now Gordon Brown the British Prime Minister has bankrupted Iceland by using "Anti-terrorism" law to freeze their assets the Icelandic government has gone crying to Russia for help.

Iceland owe worldwide £35 billion. They have used illegal methods to refuse to pay it back

now Gordon Brown has got nasty, they are crying to the Ruskie's who have said they will lend them more Euro money.

Worst case scenario -- Iceland go with Russia. Russia invade Iceland and it's mere 300,000 citizens, or Russia set up nuclear bases in Iceland.

Scrat;1017668 wrote: Anymore on the Iceland thing?


Not as yet, Scrat, i'm waiting for Gordon Brown the Prime Minister to phone me when he's had his tea. You'll be the first to know. :wah:

From what i can make out today, Iceland's threat to go to the Ruskie's has fallen on deaf ears with the great scottish one (Gordon Brown).

Russia was offering Iceland more Euro money (in return for a very convienient ex US base).

It now appears, the Icelandic Government have u turned and want to talk to Gordon Brown about an small interim re-payment whilst further negotiations take place.

Once again, Bloody well done Gordon Brown.

Now apparently, Bush is saying he would like to go the UK way. mmmmm Interesting.