Moon of Alabama Brecht quote
April 27, 2007
The Missile Threat From Nicaragua

The U.S. wants to build "missile defense" positions in Poland and Czechia. Moscow is not amused.

The Russians argue:

  • There is no missile threat from Iran or North Korea to the U.S. or Europe and it is unlikely that there will ever be such.
  • The positioning of a defense against it in Poland does not make any geographic sense as it is outside of the flight path of the assumed threat.
  • The U.S. "missile defense" has never functioned so far. It is not usefull for real missile defense.
  • This is a ruse to install a first-strike capacity against Russia. A ballistic missile attack from Poland on Russia would leave Russia only some three minutes of reaction time. A political and military decapitation of Russia would thereby become possible.

Russia’s President Putin now considers to pull out of the Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe. This could start a new arms-race no NATO country but the U.S. wants.

Sec State Rice is miffed:

“These are treaty obligations, and everyone is expected to live up to treaty obligations,” she said.

But back in 2001 the Bush administration unilaterally pulled out of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty which prohibits any missile defense. Then Rice said:

So our view is, the treaty is a problem. We need to find ways to get beyond that treaty. It is not appropriate for the current environment, …

To counter the U.S. hypocrisy Putin should consider to travel to Havana.

There is an urgent need to immediately build up Russian "missile defense" stations in Cuba to deter the ever growing threat of a missile attacks on Moscow by the rogue state of Nicaragua.

Comments

Did you see this gem from Rice?

“The idea that somehow 10 interceptors and a few radars in eastern Europe are going to threaten the Soviet strategic deterrent is purely ludicrous and everybody knows it,” she told reporters in Oslo, where she is attending a NATO meeting.

They want their old playmates back so badly …

Posted by: Colman | Apr 27 2007 9:05 utc | 1

Funny you should mention Cuba.
This is very much like the pre-stages of the Cuban missile crisis, which started with the US putting nuclear missiles near the Soviet border, and the Soviets retaliating by putting missiles in Cuba.
It was a deliberate provocation by the US then and it is a deliberate provocation by the US now.

Posted by: Gaianne | Apr 27 2007 9:05 utc | 2

The US economy (and hence government) is a vast war machine, geared and greased to service foreign conflicts. It needs to create new theaters of tension and low level combat every bit as much as it needs to design, manufacture and sell weapons for them.
Peace? What the hell would America do with peace?
Wait wait don’t tell me — steal it, rape it, shoot it in the head, and then spread democracy on it.

Posted by: Antifa | Apr 27 2007 9:57 utc | 3

As has been brought up, this brings back my memories of the Cuban missle crisis. To end that crisis, America agreed to remove its missiles from Turkey in exchange for Russia removing theirs from Cuba. At that time, the US govt was clearly of a mindset that Russian missile launching facilities close to America’s border was a threat to national security. To now tell Russia to just ignore them next door in Poland is a gross hypocrisy.
When you hear the words: “Hi, we’re from the (US) government and we’re here to help you,” close your ears and run like hell! Poland should. Russia is right to be concerned. There are absolutely no American security interests to be served by wiring up Poland to defend America against Iran, a country which has never even threatened it or anyone else. Remember, Condi was supposed to be a Russia “expert.”

Posted by: Ensley | Apr 27 2007 12:55 utc | 4

Both NATO and the US have explicit first-strike (nuke) policies. Nato’s policy was reaffirmed in 1999, I don’t remember if it ever had a no-first-strike policy though that was discussed at some time long ago (80s). US CONPLAN 8022 was ifirc put forth in 2003 but the WaPo discussed it in 2005. Others here will know more precisely.link
Anyway between policy and announced, evident, public capability, which is what is being reached for here -I suppose-, there is a kind of gulf. Crossing it seems more than a symbolic threat, or a move in a jockeying game.
Putin’s speech seemed very reasonable, even low-key (link to the conf) — I don’t know about the ambiance at these conferences, it could be that such a manner is mandatory, old talking points are re-cycled, it shows good will, and the shouting or stiff talk is not on the public agenda.
My feeling is that this is a provocation Putin cannot let pass by.
And as for Europe – geographical Europe, or the Old Europe, if they don’t support Putin /Russia, either covertly and cleverly, or upfront, they will not eat cake.
And the EU itself is clearly a hollow shell. Or worse.

Posted by: Noirette | Apr 27 2007 14:32 utc | 5

in the course of my research for the AFRICOM article, one outcome which stood out was the future of EUCOM & what removing that command tended for its remaining area of responsibility (AOR). EUCOM was largely instrumental in promoting & then building up current u.s. military activities on the african continent. critics pointed out that this was necessary to justify the existence — funding, career advancement, etc — of that combatant command after the disintegration of the soviet bloc. EUCOM thrived on the opportunities it created for itself in africa. now that its mission there ends, it is obvious that EUCOM will need to find new pretexts where it still operates if it wants to keep that money flowing & europeans should pay attention to how this play out.

Posted by: b real | Apr 27 2007 14:41 utc | 6

Asia Times with a good piece on the bigger picture: In the trenches of the new cold war

Prima facie, the US stance sounds eminently reasonable and conciliatory. But the 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.)
Russia says these deployments by far predated Bush’s “axis of evil” thesis or the threat perceptions of “rogue states” such as Iran. Russian experts explain that neither Iran nor North Korea could possibly have the scientific or technical capability within the next 20-30 years to develop intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) capable of reaching the US. Thus Moscow concludes that the real purpose of the US deployment is to cover the European part of Russia as far as the Urals.

Posted by: b | Apr 27 2007 17:06 utc | 7

Polish foreign policy has always been stupid. In the 1930s they aligned with Germany.
A lot of good it did them!

Posted by: Gaianne | Apr 27 2007 23:11 utc | 8

Antifa #3–
A good background summary of US policy. 😀

Posted by: Gaianne | Apr 27 2007 23:13 utc | 9

Chavez should convert to Islam and then allow Iran to station missles capable of reaching the USA on Isla de Aves. That ought to send Cheney’s pacemaker into overdrive.

Posted by: Maracatu | Apr 28 2007 0:51 utc | 10

From that same article you linked, b:
In the trenches of the new cold war

Washington is counting on the shift to the right in the locus of European politics. It is much to Moscow’s disadvantage that Nicolas Sarkozy is on course to succeed Jacques Chirac as French president. That leaves Romano Prodi in Rome as the lone ranger from Moscow’s side. Moscow would have assessed that German Chancellor Angela Merkel is already playing for time. She refuses to be pinned down on the missile-defense controversy. In essence, Merkel believes in the benefits of closer trans-Atlantic cooperation.

Without doubt, there are contradictory tendencies in trans-Atlantic relations. Of course, there is a degree of queasiness in Europe about US power and influence on the continent in the post-Cold War era. Much of Europe doesn’t think that the US missile-defense system works, let alone that an apocalyptic Iranian threat exists. Even in Poland and the Czech Republic there is widespread public opposition to the US deployments. The major European capitals resent that Washington is negotiating bilaterally with Warsaw and Prague, as if a coherent European security and defense policy independent of NATO is never achievable for Europe.
The European sensibility watches with dismay that not only has the EU dream of a big, peaceful post-modern federation receded but the specter of new Cold War-like divisions has begun haunting Europe. Many in Europe would agree with Gorbachev when he said last week that the missile-defense controversy “is all about influence and domination”.
To be sure, trans-Atlantic relations are undergoing a major transformation. Despite all the talk of kindred values and similar social systems, the US is no longer supportive of the European project of integration. True, the Americans were at one time the promoters of the European project. But now they have developed distaste for the idea of European integration. And the Europeans remain uneasy about US “unilateralism”.
On the other hand, Europe also faces an identity crisis. The Berlin Declaration, which was adopted last month on the 50th anniversary of the European Economic Community, completely overlooked the objective of the pan-European project. Translated into EU-Russia relations, all this means is that neither side seems to know what it wants from the other side. As things stand, it is highly unlikely that the Partnership and Cooperation Agreement of 1999 between the EU and Russia, which expires at the end of this year, will be extended or replaced by a new treaty.

Is Royal talking about the new cold war that the US is firing up?
Can the French electorate be made to rally around her, to allow France to fill the vacuum in EU leadership left by the Merkel’s acquiescence to the US’ cold-war nostalgia?

Posted by: John Francis Lee | Apr 28 2007 0:52 utc | 11

Can the French electorate be made to rally around her, to allow France to fill the vacuum in EU leadership left by the Merkel’s acquiescence to the US’ cold-war nostalgia?
Take a look at this piece on the exit polls (link). According to a commenter:
From the high scores Bayrou makes among readers of left-leaning newspapers and magazines, I optimistically infer that a significant number of them will vote Royal in the second round

Posted by: Maracatu | Apr 28 2007 2:29 utc | 12