Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


Russia strikes the wrong note with Obama

Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 15 November 2008
DMITRY Medvedev, the Russian president, looks to have committed a strategic blunder by sending Barack Obama a message on his election day threatening the deployment of nuclear missiles to Kaliningrad.
On an occasion, when even America's twin nemeses, Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Venezuela's Hugo Chavez, sent telegrams of good wishes, Mr Medvedev's act stood out.

The US defence secretary, Bill Gates, who is likely to be re- employed by the O
bama administration, has slammed the plan as "provocative, unnecessary and misguided" and "hardly the welcome a new American administration deserves".

Both sides of Congress already view Russia as a foe rather than a partner, remembering the decision to cut off gas supplies to Ukraine in mid-winter and last summer's invasion of Georgia.

And the European Commission president, Jose Manuel Barroso, this week added his own criticism saying : "It is not a good idea to speak about missiles in Kaliningrad. We don't need a new Cold War."

Mr Medvedev has since tried to back-track on the issue, insisting the Iskander-M tactical nuclear missiles would only be deployed if the US set up its planned anti-missile system in the Czech Republic and Poland.

Washington's problem with its anti-missile system had been reluctance in the capitals of Western Europe to support the plan, despite American insistence that it wants to target "rogue" missiles from Iran or North Korea.

But US officials can now point to the Kaliningrad threat as evidence of a Russia that cannot be trusted.

The truth is that the Obama administration, facing wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and the nuclear ambitions of Iran has assigned Russia a low priority.

And with falling oil and gas prices and a collapsing Russian stock market, Moscow has found that it now needs the West more than the West needs Moscow.





Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 14 November 2008 10:28 PM
  • Source: The Scotsman
  • Location: Edinburgh
 
1

,

15/11/2008 00:17:49
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
2

,

15/11/2008 00:18:36
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
3

2dogs in D.C.,

15/11/2008 00:28:05
Ok,Now what about the subject? I think Putins' puppet may have spoken to soon.
4

American,

15/11/2008 01:24:41
OH MY!!! Why has he not fallen under the magical spell of obama yet? How dare he challenge obama! Let's see how his highness handles it. Obama will probably "negotiate and keep tensions low" by paying the russians to keep their nuke missiles in cuba,
5

Zeba,

USA 15/11/2008 01:33:04
It looks like Israel will be selling Russia our drones. That is not a good idea
6

2dogs in D.C.,

15/11/2008 01:55:42
People,please,you lost.Now just grow up and deal with it. It does no good to our nation if you continue to spew hate.Working together,maybe we can climb out of this hole,fighting over spilt milk only makes us weaker.
7

Abesaidwhat,

Minnesota 15/11/2008 01:56:32
I think we should stop moaning and start groaning.
8

,

15/11/2008 02:04:05
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
9

DrP,

Calgary 15/11/2008 02:04:52
The first thing about a missile defence system is that it can't work. (Read Scientific American a couple of years ago). Because of easy to make, and cheap decoys it is possible to overwhelm any system. Because it is therefore essential to hit a missile in its launch phase, the anti-missile system must be placed very close to the launch site. Perhaps no-one noticed but Iran and Korea are not close to Poland and Czech Republic
10

2dogs in D.C.,

15/11/2008 02:27:56
#9-DrP-Thanks for bringing rationality back to this forum.
11

P. Lee,

15/11/2008 02:30:37
#9
Yes interesting article, America just want to circle Russia but they forget about China
Ha Ha, Big big mistake
12

,

15/11/2008 06:18:19
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
13

,

15/11/2008 14:12:11
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
14

,

15/11/2008 14:12:57
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
15

yockel,

15/11/2008 16:33:39
When will the Hootsmon be reporting on the French denunciation of the US missile plan?
16

Bele's bane,

Scotland 15/11/2008 17:28:14
Post #5 Zeba

You have no idea how close to a possible truth you might be!

Afterall, buisness is business, we also do wholesale!
17

Bele's bane,

Scotland 15/11/2008 17:36:03
Post #11 P.Lee

Russia has been encircled so many time in history that they have lost count but they have learnt from their experience-hence the distrust of missiles next door!

America went apopelectic when Cuba was to be the base for Russian missiles.

After the lies told about the Iraq invasion no one believes America's story that the missiles in Poland are to defend anyone.
18

Beachcomber,

Edinburgh 15/11/2008 17:39:20
#15 Yokel

Taken from Irish News

http://news.eircom.net/international/14256603/
19

Beachcomber,

Edinburgh 15/11/2008 17:42:22
#5 Zeba "It looks like Israel will be selling Russia our drones. That is not a good idea"

Why would Israel change the habits of a lifetime?
Not that the UK/US are squeeky clean.
20

,

15/11/2008 19:00:43
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
21

Veniamin Nikolayev,

Philadelphia, USA 15/11/2008 19:01:52
Behind the tremendous technical complexity of all these radars, lasers and interceptor missiles, there is very simple logic: if Russia knows that it will not be able to destroy its adversary in the case of a nuclear war, then it is far less likely to ever use its nuclear arsenal no matter what happens.

Russia’s response of deploying “Iskanders” to Kaliningrad is a defensive half-measure that is only good enough to address - partially - the ABM threat from Poland and the Czech republic at this time. The only workable reponse to the ABM arms race initiated by the US when it pulled out of the 1972 ABM treaty is for Russia to set up similar ABM facilities around the US. Venezuela comes to mind. If Obama is smart, he will realize that this cat-and-mouse game that has been played by Moscow and Washington for the past sixty years consistently achieves only two things: shattered nerves and empty wallets. The US does not have the scientific, technological, or economic advantage over Russia significant enough to win this game. Even in its darkest hours, Russia has always been able to counter the US and then some.
22

Veniamin Nikolayev,

Philadelphia, USA 15/11/2008 19:02:19
P.S. It seems Medvedev got what he wanted - a one-on-one with Obama. AFP quoted Russia’s Foreign Minister Lavrov as saying that a meeting between Medvedev and Obama may take place in Washington as early as next Friday. I may be wrong, but I think this is may be the first time a Russian leader will be meeting with an American president-elect. Interesting to note that Obama already spoke on the phone with Poland’s Lech Kaczynski, who raised the question of missile defense - apparently seeking assurances from Obama that the project will proceed as planned - but got no specific response from Obama, other than a few words on the importance of America’s relations with Poland. It should be mentioned that initially Polish President claimed that Obama assured him that the ABM shield project will go ahead. Obama’s foreign policy adviser had to correct this statement, saying that Obama “made no commitment” and that “he supports deploying a missile defense system when the technology is proved to be workable”.

Russia’s threat to deploy ballistic missiles in Kalinigrad at this time was a shrewed move. The ABM shield is known to be Bush’s pet project. The system’s effectiveness is being widely questioned by experts. Russia’s opposition to the plan is well known. Come February, the last thing Obama needs is Russia deploying ballistic missiles on the Polish border. There is a possibility that, while Obama will not completely abandon ABM shield plans, he may choose to put the project on hold, provided that Russia will do the same with its missile plans. Russia, on the other hand, has to use this opportunity to the fullest and will probably be looking for a more permanent solution to the ABM shield issue.
23

Barb B,

NY USA 16/11/2008 04:10:50
We need to work with Russia not against Russia. Fortunately with a new President in waiting the opportunity should not be missed. President Bush is the most divisive useless president in American history
24

mike - across the pond,

Veniamin Nikolayev 16/11/2008 08:31:53
"The US does not have the scientific, technological, or economic advantage over Russia significant enough to win this game. Even in its darkest hours, Russia has always been able to counter the US and then some."

WHAT?

lets see....

1968... the arab world.... militarized by the USSR... slapped back into the 1950's by Israel

1976 a russian pilot flys a MIG-25 to japan... we dis-assemble it only to find out that it is F-4 vintage technology...

1986.... chernobyl... cause... flawed russian nuclear reactor design...

1991... Saddam Hussein's Iraq... militarized by the USSR... got slapped back into the 1960's... mother of all battles... ROFL....

2000... Kursk goes to "davey jones locker"... cause... torpedo propellent system disregarded in the west in the 1960s as TOO UNSTABLE....

2002... Saddam Hussein's Iraq... ANOTHER "mother of all battles"... this time utter defeat... Hussein put out of power... everywhere...

2008... Syria... militarized by the USSR... SOMEBODY flies in and destroys a nuclear plant... and Syria cant even tell you who it was.... maybe it was little green men...

I'm REALLY trying to figure out who it is you think is woopin russian tail at every turn here?

I suppose it COULD be little green men...
25

P Rayner.,

Latin America 16/11/2008 18:18:36
I´m a pro Atlanticist and would prefer GB to leave the EU. That said this anti Russian propaganda from GB , but more particularly from the US, is nauseating. How the deployment of US missiles in Poland is OK but deployment of Russian missiles in Russia is provocative is beyond me.NATO ring fencing of Russia is now counter productive and needs to be curtailed, as does British-American interference worldwide, except where interests are directly imperilled.
26

SouthernGent,

17/11/2008 01:25:39
#25
"How the deployment of US missiles in Poland is OK but deployment of Russian missiles in Russia is provocative "

For starters, one is "defensive" (no warheads) and the other (Russian) is "offensive" (warheads). If you can't see a difference......

Personally, I think its time for the EU to take care of all NATO responsibilities in Europe, but I don't see them making that proposal. Why?
27

Lianachan,

Highlands 17/11/2008 12:35:17
Througout the cold war, the US was trying to design aircraft to penetrate Soviet airspace, while the Soviets were trying to design aircraft to shoot those down, ie, thinking defensively.

The "invasion of Georgia" reference is annoying, as Georgia was the aggressor there.

All of this anti-Russian hysteria in the media over here would be hilarious, if it wasn't so transparent and annoying.

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.