Russia to deploy missiles in Kaliningrad

[Plane]

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iixUMnyP1SvpqLuds4ACt56lczywD948NF6O0


AS far as I know ther is no Russian plan to invade Europe , these missles are just decorative.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Missiles_In_Kaliningrad_999.html

[Michael Tee]

Here's the whole of the AP article you linked to:

<<MOSCOW (AP) — President Dmitry Medvedev says Russia will deploy missiles in its Baltic Sea territory in response to U.S. missile defense plans.

<<Medvedev says the short-range Iskander missiles will be deployed to the Kaliningrad region which borders NATO members Poland and Lithuania. He has not said how many missiles will be deployed or whether they will be fitted with nuclear warheads.

<<He said in a state-of-the-nation speech Wednesday that Russia will also deploy equipment to conduct to electronically hamper the operation of prospective U.S. missile defense facilities in Poland and the Czech Republic.

<<Medvedev said that Russia will also use navy resources as part of its response to the U.S. missile shield.>>

Interesting, eh?  First of all, that the installation of missiles bordering Poland is IN RESPONSE TO U.S. missile defence plans.  Secondly, in what the article FAILS to point out, that the actual "U.S. missile defense plans" involved stationing missile defences in Poland and Ukraine, which border on Russia.

Had the U.S. not decided to move its missile defences right on to the Russian border, the Russian move - - obviously a counter to the American provocation - - would not have been necessary.  But the AP tries to paint America in the best light possible, by not explaining exactly what it was in the "U.S. missile shield" that constituted the provocation.

Again, making the U.S. or its Polish ally looking like the innocent victim and the Russians like the evil aggressors.

[crocat]

Here's the whole of the AP article you linked to:

<<MOSCOW (AP) — President Dmitry Medvedev says Russia will deploy missiles in its Baltic Sea territory in response to U.S. missile defense plans.

<<Medvedev says the short-range Iskander missiles will be deployed to the Kaliningrad region which borders NATO members Poland and Lithuania. He has not said how many missiles will be deployed or whether they will be fitted with nuclear warheads.

<<He said in a state-of-the-nation speech Wednesday that Russia will also deploy equipment to conduct to electronically hamper the operation of prospective U.S. missile defense facilities in Poland and the Czech Republic.

<<Medvedev said that Russia will also use navy resources as part of its response to the U.S. missile shield.>>

Interesting, eh?  First of all, that the installation of missiles bordering Poland is IN RESPONSE TO U.S. missile defence plans.  Secondly, in what the article FAILS to point out, that the actual "U.S. missile defense plans" involved stationing missile defences in Poland and Ukraine, which border on Russia.

Had the U.S. not decided to move its missile defences right on to the Russian border, the Russian move - - obviously a counter to the American provocation - - would not have been necessary.  But the AP tries to paint America in the best light possible, by not explaining exactly what it was in the "U.S. missile shield" that constituted the provocation.

Again, making the U.S. or its Polish ally looking like the innocent victim and the Russians like the evil aggressors.

How do you feel about Chenobyl?  (excuse spelling).....or when they decided  to disband the Soviet Union and left stock piles of radioactive material and weaponry  all over their former  borders to just rot and decay or be snatched up by despots?

Do you think that was also because of the evil Americans?



My guess about the break up is not because of quaking fear of the American Imperialist pigs... but more the fact that they were just plain broke.

[Xavier_Onassis]

The US has a right to defend itself.

But in Poland? 

Do the Russians have a right to defend themselves in Alberta? St Pierre et Miquelon?  Even Big Diomede?

[Plane]

Here's the whole of the AP article you linked to:

<<MOSCOW (AP) — President Dmitry Medvedev says Russia will deploy missiles in its Baltic Sea territory in response to U.S. missile defense plans.

<<Medvedev says the short-range Iskander missiles will be deployed to the Kaliningrad region which borders NATO members Poland and Lithuania. He has not said how many missiles will be deployed or whether they will be fitted with nuclear warheads.

<<He said in a state-of-the-nation speech Wednesday that Russia will also deploy equipment to conduct to electronically hamper the operation of prospective U.S. missile defense facilities in Poland and the Czech Republic.

<<Medvedev said that Russia will also use navy resources as part of its response to the U.S. missile shield.>>

Interesting, eh?  First of all, that the installation of missiles bordering Poland is IN RESPONSE TO U.S. missile defence plans.  Secondly, in what the article FAILS to point out, that the actual "U.S. missile defense plans" involved stationing missile defences in Poland and Ukraine, which border on Russia.

Had the U.S. not decided to move its missile defences right on to the Russian border, the Russian move - - obviously a counter to the American provocation - - would not have been necessary.  But the AP tries to paint America in the best light possible, by not explaining exactly what it was in the "U.S. missile shield" that constituted the provocation.

Again, making the U.S. or its Polish ally looking like the innocent victim and the Russians like the evil aggressors.

He can get away with this laughable statement because so few people are good at math .

Where the Anti missle facility is being erected it produces no sheild between Russia , and France or England , nothing for Norway or even Denmark there are no persons who are familiar with the meaning of the term "great circle" who beleive that the Russians are being serious.

The purpose of the missle sheild is as stated to defend from Iranian launches.


I said the Russian missles are just decorative and that is what I mean , he is postureing and poseing , he isn't thinking that NATO wants to invade and he won't do anything that is truely a threat.

I can't imagine Russia winning a missle fight with NATO ,they are entirely undefended. No one thnks there will be such a fight except those who are very poorly breifed on missle capability.

[Plane]

 Matter of fact even Warsaw is not sheilded now that I look at a map.

[Xavier_Onassis]

I doubt that Warsaw is likely to ever be seriously threatened by Iran.

[Plane]

I doubt that Warsaw is likely to ever be seriously threatened by Iran.

Why not?

If NATO decides that it needs to prepare against attack from Iranian missles , what makes this idea even interesting for Russians?

The sheild is in fact not in between Russian missles and most of Nato , the Russians are not shy about saying stupid things in public.

[Michael Tee]

<<How do you feel about Chenobyl?  (excuse spelling).....>>

Horrible tragedy.  How else can you feel about it?  This was a fucking disaster and a lot of people died in it.  I think people are still being poisoned by it.

<<or when they decided  to disband the Soviet Union and left stock piles of radioactive material and weaponry  all over their former  borders to just rot and decay or be snatched up by despots?>>

Not as big a tragedy as Chernobyl but pretty fucked up.

<<Do you think that was also because of the evil Americans?>>

Yeah, I do, as a matter of fact.  I regard the downfall of the Communist Party of Russia and the breakup of the U.S.S.R. as, next to the Holocaust, the greatest single tragedy of the 20th Century.  Particularly when one thinks of the unbelievable sacrifices that had to be made to achieve communism there in the first place and to build the U.S.S.R. as the socialist motherland.  Unfortunately I don't know what happened.  There are a lot of books on the subject which I have not had the time to get into - - maybe when I finally retire - - but I am convinced that the traditional narrative ("traditional" here in the Western MSM) just doesn't ring true.  The CP obviously bears a huge share of the blame, Gorbachev in particular, and he or his circle are a key part of it, but that kind of power shift doesn't just "happen."   

One of the major factors has to be the rise of Hitler, abetted by British, French and American capital, originally as a bulwark against communism in Germany, and then later, as a Sorcerer's Apprentice who escapes the control of his benefactors.  More than anything else, WWII undermined the foundations of the Soviet State, forced the state to make promises to its workers and peasants that the American policy of Cold War made it impossible to keep.  But that's only my working hypothesis at this time.  I've got a lot of reading to do before I come to any definitive conclusions, and really I don't know what those conclusions will be.



<<My guess about the break up is not because of quaking fear of the American Imperialist pigs... but more the fact that they were just plain broke.>>

Yeah, "just plain broke."  And how did that happen?  Considering that in the 1930s, they were the world's fastest-growing economy and probably the most rapidly-industrializing nation in history, how was it that after WWII, they became "just plain broke?"  Any ideas?

[Plane]

My guess about the break up is not because of quaking fear of the American Imperialist pigs... but more the fact that they were just plain broke.

After conquering half the worlds resorces and makeing it all property of the state , how could they be broke?

Or does this question answer itself?

I credit Mattias Rust  , who flew a very ordinary aircraft into Moscow and landed on Red Square, reveiling that all of the sacrifices that had been made for the sake of defence were of no practical effect , their actual safety depended on the peaceful nature of European democracys and all of that sacrifice was demanded to stave off an invasion that no one wated to mount.

[Plane]

One of the major factors has to be the rise of Hitler, abetted by British, French and American capital, originally as a bulwark against communism in Germany, and then later, as a Sorcerer's Apprentice who escapes the control of his benefactors.&nbsp; More than anything else, WWII undermined the foundations of the Soviet State, forced the state to make promises to its workers and peasants that the American policy of Cold War made it impossible to keep.&nbsp; But that's only my working hypothesis at this time.&nbsp; I've got a lot of reading to do before I come to any definitive conclusions, and really I don't know what those conclusions will be.

Are you accuseing Chamberlin or Chirchill?

This is extremely backwards&nbsp; , the German Army never secured a treaty to get training from any government in Paris ,London, or Washington. They got the treaty for training and equipping from Lenin and Stalin. If the Germans were a bulwark against Communism , then what was that all about?

&nbsp; &nbsp; The Soviet government had chosen an airfield in the northwestern outskirts of Lipetsk, where a RKKA Air Forces unit was based, as the site where the German airmen would be trained.
&nbsp; &nbsp; The Germans appointed Major Walter Schtaar, who during the First World War was a fighter detachment commander on the Western Front, to head the Lipetsk Flying School. He held this job for 5 years despite rather unflattering references about him by the UGPU ("...a follower of Hindenburg, a Nazi of stern temper, demanding, and merciless. He is extremely hostile towards Soviet power and cannot tolerate Russians"). Such untypical tolerance on the part of the Bolsheviks towards such an attitude could only be explained by their acute interest in military cooperation with the Reichswehr at that time.

http://www.airpages.ru/cgi-bin/epg.pl?nav=ru11&page=lipetsk

 Results of the school's first year of work were summed up during a spring 1926 meeting of Soviet and German Air force commanders. Senior Lieutenant Wilberg, Chief of the Reichswehr Aviation Department, announced plans to expand the activities of the fighter school and to establish a training detachment of reconnaissance aircraft to train observers and conduct experiments in aerial photography. The Soviet side supported all these suggestions. Military Commissar R. A. Muklevich, one of the RKKA Air Forces leaders, made this statement at the meeting: "You can count on total assistance and support on our part. ...Everything is based on ideological cooperation".

[Michael Tee]

<<Where the Anti missle facility is being erected it produces no sheild between Russia , and France or England , nothing for Norway or even Denmark there are no persons who are familiar with the meaning of the term "great circle" who beleive that the Russians are being serious.>>

You might have more credibility for this statement if you could show a map anywhere with the location of the missile shield bases and the NATO countries and Iran.  I find your argument particularly hard to credit, since Russian missiles can probably launch other missiles from various points in their trajectories, whereas the Iranians would not be likely to have that kind of technology.

What you are saying, in effect, is that the Russians are lying when they say why they are placing their missiles in Kaliningrad, but that they are so fucking stupid as to make up lies that anyone with access to an atlas can disprove.  I find, on the contrary, it is the Americans who make up stupid bullshit that anyone with half a brain can see through, and the Russians, while not innately more clever than Americans, to my knowledge, are at least less transparently untruthful in their public utterances. 

[Plane]

<<Where the Anti missle facility is being erected it produces no sheild between Russia , and France or England , nothing for Norway or even Denmark there are no persons who are familiar with the meaning of the term "great circle" who beleive that the Russians are being serious.>>

You might have more credibility for this statement if you could show a map anywhere with the location of the missile shield bases and the NATO countries and Iran.  I find your argument particularly hard to credit, since Russian missiles can probably launch other missiles from various points in their trajectories, whereas the Iranians would not be likely to have that kind of technology.

What you are saying, in effect, is that the Russians are lying when they say why they are placing their missiles in Kaliningrad, but that they are so fucking stupid as to make up lies that anyone with access to an atlas can disprove.  I find, on the contrary, it is the Americans who make up stupid bullshit that anyone with half a brain can see through, and the Russians, while not innately more clever than Americans, to my knowledge, are at least less transparently untruthful in their public utterances. 

Use any location in Poland .

Draw the great circle route between the northern edge of Poland  and Paris.
Note how much Russian territory is north of that line.

No protection north of a line like that .

Yes the Russian statements and actions are quite stupid, they are depending on the dearth of persons who know Balistics.

I don't think that any rocket scientist is fooled , probly not anyone that can operate a cannon either.

[Plane]

http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&rlz=1G1GGLQ_ENUS275&q=Kaliningrad&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=X&oi=geocode_result&resnum=1&ct=title

[Michael Tee]

<<After conquering half the worlds resorces and makeing it all property of the state , how could they be broke?>>

Maybe you could be more specific about "conquering half the world's resources."  What the hell are you talking about?  As far as I could tell, they "conquered" a few East European shit-holes like Poland and Hungary and a few others, most of which were almost as broken down by the ravages of war as the U.S.S.R. itself.  You sure seem to exist in some kind of dream world unrelated to any reality I ever heard of.

The German occupation destroyed Russia's greatest resource, the Russian people themselves, some 35 million of whom were killed in the war.  And not randomly, either.  It was standard German practice on moving into an occupied town or village to assemble the (non-Jewish) inhabitants and sort them for "labour procurement" - - carpenters, over here!  metal-workers, here!  Anyone who can read or write?  Anyone with post-secondary education?  over here.  The search for "intellectuals" wasn't really for labour procurement, however.  These were the guys who were just taken out and shot.  The destruction of the Jews was the destruction of the best part of the Russian and Party intelligensia and that also was not random, it was wholesale.  You seem to think all that is made up by inheriting the ruins of Warsaw and Budapest - - boy are you naive!

The great industrial dams and power plants of the Soviet economy were painstakingly and methodically destroyed, not by the happenstance of bombing raids, but on the ground, where every last detail could be attended to to see that nothing would be salvaged.

Your sunny and optimistic fairy tale of how easy the Russians had it is nauseating in the extreme.  They were put through a wringer which left them gasping, with a decimated population which had been promised a new life after the war, and instead of a new life, they were forced again to begin preparation from the ruins for a defence against their former allies, now surrounding them with bases and cozying up to their former Nazi persecutors.  The outlines of what happened are sort of clarifying but I admit I don't know what the real story is.  I know it's probably not the way you say it is.

<<Or does this question answer itself?>>

It should, but for some of us, apparently, it does not.

<<I credit Mattias Rust  , who flew a very ordinary aircraft into Moscow and landed on Red Square, reveiling that all of the sacrifices that had been made for the sake of defence were of no practical effect >>

I just don't believe any of that's true, there was a big difference between Mattias Rust and an incoming missile, it's quite possible that nobody wanted to shoot down a two-seater civilian plane (although after Sept. 11, I'm sure that wouldn't be the case) but you are correct in that a discrepancy between the truth and the propaganda, particularly about living standards in the West, could no longer be kept from the people.

We met an American in Russia visiting family in the Ukraine who told us that his uncle was boasting of his dirt-floored farm house and all its primitive amenities and seemed to take it for granted that it was so much better than the appalling conditions under which American farm families were living; the uncle basically threw the kid out of the house when he tried to convince  him that the American farmers had indoor plumbing, running hot water and all the real amenities.  Just wouldn't believe it.  I read of other Russians being very embittered to finally learn how much better the conquered Germans were living than they were themselves.  It didn't seem right, particularly in view of the wartime sacrifices and the promises that the leaders had made of the life they would enjoy after the inevitable victory.

I think the Party should have leveled with the people, told them that the sacrifices would have to continue and presented them with a plan for ultimate victory over the West.  But how, when the West had, at least temporarily, a nuclear monopoly?

<<their actual safety depended on the peaceful nature of European democracys and all of that sacrifice was demanded to stave off an invasion that no one wated to mount.>>

Are you nuts?  You know how many times they'd already been invaded and/or sabotaged by the "peaceful European democracies?"  or by the U.S.A. and even Canada?  How can you even write that crap with a straight face?