Should Russia consider using pre-emptive strikes to protect itself and its allies?


Al2 19 January, 2008, 15:25	No. All that dip of a general has done is draw a gun used in the coldwar. Let's have another arms race, why not? The last one enabled America and Russia to build enough nuclear weapons to destroy the world 100 times over. What a great idea!! I can't really say what I think about this nummie that said it. [edited by RT] permalink quote 0 Al2
Sam 19 January, 2008, 16:13	Is it not confirming the obvious? All the nuclear superpowers had always had that policy. Guess Russian federation is just reminding everyone that they still have 6000 active warheads and 10,000 in storage. permalink quote 0 Sam
DD 19 January, 2008, 16:51	Things like these should never even be considered. We're not talking about candies here, but about total destruction of mankind. And especially Russia doesn't need it to consider because it has plenty of other means to defend itself perfecly. Besides, it makes people lose respect for Russia, as for now Russia is seen as a proud strong & civilised nation. These kind of statements are usually only done by lunatic US generals or presidents. They are the only ones who actually dropped this weapon on innocent human beings,twice! So please Russia, don't try to sink morally as deep as "the empire" has!! Greetings, from Brussels permalink quote 0 DD
Disillusioned 19 January, 2008, 18:21	Today the UN is a non-functioning, impotent, utterly useless instituition. It needs reforms and fast. It has utterly useless SCO members like Frnace/UK, who apart from their puny Nuclear hoards have nothing really to offer anything constructive. It should be reformed immediately bringing in countries like India, Brazil, Germany,South Afica in the UNSC. Today it has been proved like so many times in the past, as in Iraq, Vietnam,Bosnia, etc. that It is just a tool for some powers suffering from a WW2 hangover. And Kosovo crisis is the last straw that could break the camel's back. The world has to take note and act quickly, otherwhise, I'm afraid,this scenario could soon be a reality, if not from RF,then some other rogue states, which have the arsenal, but are non-revealing about it! At least RF has been a responsible power, unlike some, who REALLY like to throw their 'ugly'weight around! permalink quote 0 Disillusioned
Norman 19 January, 2008, 18:37	This was the scariest aspect of the Cold War era! I agree that it should not even be considered by a civilised nation like Russia. It would mean a response, and the destruction of Russian cities too. I believe that only rogue nations and terrorists would consider such an extreme option. permalink quote 0 Norman
Unneccesary 19 January, 2008, 18:57	Has anyone really considered the reason why this 'implied'threat/suggestion was made? Has anyone really considered why NATO today is in existence? Has anyone considered the plight of those millions of children/widows in Iraq/Afghanisthan who are suffering the ravages of war, because one state found it neccesary, to 'DEFEND'its own security, sitting thousands of miles away. Did the NATO 'hooligans' think that all countries have to surrender and all its citizens suffer, in order that people thousands of miles away live in 'SAFETY'. People use what they have and if the situation arrives, RF has all the right to use not only nuclear, but all chemical and biological/space weapons , as is being developed by powers, whose citizens are perhaps more 'EQUAL' than others. Has anyone considered why SONAR WEAPONS are being tried on poor unarmed Dolphins, after all they're not TERRORISTS? permalink quote 0 Unneccesary
avatar 19 January, 2008, 19:21	6th march,2007. BBC comment(atleast her washingtons correspondent's comments) on scooter LibBy's gulity verdit on 6th march,2007--"it does not matter to white house as long as iraq war turns out to be all right"!! for BBc illegal occupation of iraq and killing of million civilians does not matter -it will be al r ight for american occupation. This is human rights and democracy ala BBc and british propaganda. see and watch todays bbc and realize how much bbc and other british propaganda machinary is responsible for bush war crimes. He also assuredly told that this "white house is quite safe"as wished for by the british ofocurse. during gore-bush florida tussle bbc was advocating gore to leave bush alone as britian was waiting for american missile defence to come her shore soon and so no delay in small matter of who should be presidentof usa be allowed.d-bit belicve it? look at all british propaganda between 1st novembr till 20th novembr of 2000. it is high time that engish spies in american establishment be eliminated. it is high time that these english spies in usa are taken care of . may 25th, 2007. http://www.larouchepac.com/ LaRouche on Russian TV: "British Empire" Determined to have a war with Russia, China and India May 25 (LPAC)--The impact of Lyndon LaRouche's visit to Moscow last week is still being felt, with repeat broadcasts of LaRouche's interview in Moscow May 16, to the economist Mikhail Khazin, host of the "A+ in Economics" weekly program on the Spas Channel, a satellite TV station linked with the Russian Orthodox Church. The interview first aired on Friday, May 18, and was repeated several times. With "showdowns" looming between the Anglo-American-Euro bloc at the United Nations and Russia and China over Iran, and possibly over Kosovo, LaRouche identified the real war danger as coming from the British Empire--as he has described it--targeting Russia, China and India. LaRouche said: these protestant baptists((and so callled religious fundamentalists and evnagalicals bastards)) are the agents of england inside america and have always been. thse baptists are the ones who created civil war for the benefit of british to reconquer america and during attack of britian in 1812 these baptists were acting as enemy agents inside amaerica. these baptisat are called patrioit--now what a shame? the southern flag is sympbol of american patriotism when it was really an instrument of treachery to the american independence. " I am afraid the meddling small minded, fearful white boy is indicative of a large group of the amerikan types who still support a corrupt regieme of neo-con syncopants. He and those like him live in suspicion and fear of anyone different from themselves. He was once a settler who cut down and burned the forest of New England because he was afraid of the wildlife. He was once a trader who passed out smallpox blankets to the Indians. Then later a buffalo hunter who decimated entire herds and left them to rot on the plains. His grandfather herded Japanese into camps, his father was at MyLai. His brothers are at Abu Graib and Gitmo. Where will he be tommorrow?" " but all non-WASP got (and still get) their time as scapegoat-du-jour: Native, Black, Chinese, Irish, Italian, Jew, Japanese, Catholic, Latino, and now Middle-Eastern, just to name a few. Along with the scapegoating goes the profiling, which is little more than prejudice and stereotypes made legal." The recent director of Harvard’s Carr Center for Human Rights, Michael Ignatieff, proposed in the New York Times in May 2004 that we should give U.S. presidents the authority to preventively detain U.S. citizens and to engage in “coercive interrogations” should the United States experience another terrorist attack like 9/11. Ignatieff argued that “defeating terror requires violence” and “might also require coercion, secrecy, deception, even violation of rights.” “Sticking too firmly to the rule of law simply allows terrorists too much leeway to exploit our freedoms,” he said.[1] In addition to Harvard’s top human rights academic arguing on behalf of “torture lite,” Harvard Law School’s Alan Dershowitz supports “torture warrants” so that U.S. presidents can torture detainees in so-called “ticking bomb” cases. ================================================================== britain is the number one parasite nation of this world and is the main eviul brain behind american offensive (perpetual war) everywhere in the world. Why? Because only through american military might can a fourth rate country like england hope to have some influnce in the world. and the rest of the world is resopibnsible for this-why has aljarreza engagesd the british journalists like frost in the english version?lokk how much propaganda english eversion al zareeja is making agasint irana nd zimbawe -in otherworlds doing the bidding for british media and british govermnet lies. [part of the post has been removed] 4th June, 2007. President putin is wrong when he says that russia should or will target the missile on europe if america goes with anti missile defence plan in Europe. Russia must target (rather than should) the nuclear missiles with multiple war heads against all the cities, towns and big villages( including military instalations) of england because this cold war -like the one before- is being started by england for the benefit of english race only-.it is race war between the english parasite race versus the rest of the world-the sooner the rest of the world realizes that better it is for the world. look how germany wes villified soon after fall of soviet union-look how russia is being vilified immediately after Putin made russia strong. [part of the post has been removed] thse same british bastards talking of religious(chrisitan and muslim ) war propagandasie hispanics, iriash , ger,ams , french as not in american chritisan groups. they also do not think those white europeans to be thier kind which desreves to be in america-such is the evil propaganda of british spies inside america. . poland is nothing but a proxy for the british bastards.In fact poland and other east europeans were taken in hurriedly in E. U. only by the insistence of the british because british wanted to dilute the core group of europe that is france and germany 's influnce and make EU just an appendage of angloamerican power structure while in fact europe was started as a counter to angloamerican influnce-what a reversal of role! [part of the post has been removed] permalink quote 0 avatar
Al 19 January, 2008, 21:13	The comment was triggered by NATO's continued aggressive expansionism and to serve as a reminder that Russia will not tolerate an unabated military buildup on its borders nor that its friends and allies (and ultimately Russia itself) be subjected to further NATO terrorism. permalink quote 0 Al
MihalMihalich 19 January, 2008, 21:19	RE Norman - You might be legally retarded. Dear Ladies & Gentlemen CAUSALITY. 1. Once upon a time there was Cuban Missile Crisis (1962) when USSR communist dictator was placing tactical missiles with questionable range at U.S. borders. 2. No-name-yet Missile Crisis (2008) when U.S.A. president is placing missiles at Russian boarder. 1.1. In Cuban Missile Crisis Americans said that they would launch nukes unless those missiles are gone. They were ready to End this world… and that crisis was communist USSR fault. 2.1. In No-name-yet Missile Crisis Russians say we will change POLICY regarding use of military force and of cause nuclear weapons. (It is freaking naïve to think that this policy changes anything.) Democratic Americans placing those missiles and this crisis would be logically U.S. fault. Trust me when I say that hypothetically speaking Russia would win any war against anyone but United States. And United States can win against everyone but Russia because that is ONLY country in this little world that can reach US boarders. And because United States don’t have any means of intercepting Russian warheads not even with new THAAD, so they are going after missiles not warheads placing antimissile systems at very boarder. It is a noble idea from their point of view. I believe that same general recently gave interview in which he informed public that if Russian radars will detect a launch of a single U.S.-Warsaw antimissile in ANY direction it will AUTOMATICLY launch actual NUKES on Washington and New-York. Why? Because those missiles have signature oh tactical nuclear missiles and they are capable of reaching Moscow in matter of minutes. What GOOD does antimissile system do if it starts WW3 and ends the world? (note. If any country does long range missile testing they give 1-month notice to US & Russia for that very reason) U.S congress is cutting funding to the antimissile project as far as I know. Hopefully new president will have wisdom and won’t provoke second Cuban Missile Crisis. Best wishes & regards PS There might be minor inaccurate time frames in my post. permalink quote 0 MihalMihalich
Andy 19 January, 2008, 21:19	I fail to understand why, in the advanced world, in which we now live, politicians can't see deeper than old mis-understandings. Russian culture is different from English but still the Uk persists in mis-reporting the fact that Russia can not easily extradite Lugavoy, stating that Russia simply "refuses" to extradite him and not that they can't without changing their constitution. Then they use this as a poor excuse for escalating differences. Not much is known about the real Russia in the UK so this blatant misuse of facts just makes mis-understandings worse and creates an incorrect picture of Russia. It seems that there is some other reason why the UK and Russia want to disagree for a while. Very sad in a modern world to see this. permalink quote 0 Andy
Vusi 19 January, 2008, 23:09	If Russia wants to remain a free country it should continue on this stance. The USA and it western European allies want to have the whole world under their control and since Russia is a country that want multilateral world the USA and it allies view it in a bad light. The choice is Russia’s to stand for it right to freedom and prosperity or allow the USA to turn Russia into another of it outpost. permalink quote 0 Vusi
John 19 January, 2008, 23:27	Russia is entitled to defend herself and her allies againt attack. If the Russian security services know an attack is imminent, it is logical to strike first. Does NATO honestly believe that the rest of world believes that they wouldn't do likewise? Anyway, going on recent history, the countries most likely to lash out wildly ignoring the UN are the USA and USA backed Israel. permalink quote 0 John
Marzipan6 20 January, 2008, 05:41	If a country, including Russia, has genuine evidence of an imminent massive attack against it, a pre-emptive strike is likely to be entirely sensible. Under such circumstances it would be foolish to simply wait and do nothing. In Russia’s case, however, the world has reason to be wary of Russia’s judgment. In 1939, for instance, Russia’s “pre-emptive strike” against danger posed by Nazi Germany was to enter into practical alliance with it under the terms of the infamous Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. Thereafter, until Germany attacked Russia, Russia provided resources to the Nazi army as it went on its way of conquest through Europe. Worse, according to then-secret protocols attached to the Pact, Berlin and Moscow divided Europe between them, into respective “spheres of influence”, and each agreed to give the other a free hand in conquering their assigned part of the continent. In accordance with the terms of those protocols, Moscow immediately invaded the Baltic countries, annexed them to the Soviet Union, and commenced mass repressions against them. It returned in 1944 and maintained its illegal control until 1991, though what it was “pre-empting” against remains unclear. Even though post-Soviet Russia has renounced the Molotov- Ribbentrop Pact as a document, to this day, from its President on down, it continues to justify the Baltic aggression that Moscow committed under the terms of that document. As well, Russia continues to find offence and threats in actions of countries where no offence and and no threat is intended. One therefore cannot have over-much confidence in the correctness or ethics of whatever the next “pre-emptive strike” may be that Moscow may judge it needs to make. The principle of pre-emption is great, but the record of its application by Moscow is fairly lamentable. permalink quote 0 Marzipan6
dan 20 January, 2008, 10:08	Why is Russia talking war all the time.I fail to understand why a country can build 120 nuclear subs and god knows how many missiles and tanks ETc.How many times do you want to destroy the world?I think the money would be better spent on roads that people can drive on as opposed to the terrible pot holed ones you have.Pavements that your citizens can walk on without falling over in the holes.And of course clean up the rubbish all around the towns.The list goes on and on.Cant you see it? permalink quote 0 dan
David 20 January, 2008, 11:45	If the perception is there doubled with the facts i.e. actual missiles posted on Russia's borders, why not? So, the answer, in my view is YES permalink quote 0 David
O.S. 20 January, 2008, 13:45	"MAD is dead." - Donald Rumsfeld permalink quote 0 O.S.
Roger 20 January, 2008, 14:55	This is the first time I have read your column and as a Patiotic American I agree with President Putins concerns about non Russian Missles on Russias borders.I dont think it will serve our national interest.I do think that Russia better give some serious thouht to an Alliance with the Mad dogs in Teheran,Iran but no body ever blamed the Russians for learning from their past mistakes (ie.Nazi Germany 1938-39) permalink quote 0 Roger
Generalisimo 20 January, 2008, 15:58	I doubt anyone will try to attack Russia. Any attack on Russia would require an enormous buildup over months so it would be pretty obvious. Also I dont think its a good thing when nukes start flying because a whole lot of people are gonna get hurt. I think what the Russian general was saying is that if Russia is forced to defend itself in a serious way you can count on yourself being burnt to a crisp by its nukes - so better to think twice about what you do against Russia. permalink quote 0 Generalisimo
JC 20 January, 2008, 22:03	Yes, any strike that is guaranteed to neutralize the enemy should be used- without intending to cause human deaths. permalink quote 0 JC
Russ from Berlin 20 January, 2008, 22:09	If Mr Dubya stations his missiles in the Czech Republic, Russia will have no alternative but to station similar missiles in Cuba and/or maybe Venenezuela. Why so? Remember the "Cuba missile crisis" of the mid-1960s, when the USSR stationed missiles in Cuba in response to the stationing of US missiles in Turkey, where they were within 11 minutes' striking distance of Moscow? Humanity then was within a hair's breadth of extinction. But the difference between then and now is that the USSR was a rational state facing an irrational and hence unpredictable opponent (over 20% of Americans believe in the second coming). I don't know the percentage in Russia, but it's probably not much smaller today. So the likelihood of an Armageddon the Bushy fundamentalists are hoping for may indeed be just around the corner. Oh well, if that's humanity's goal, at least there won't be any of us left to worry about global warming. permalink quote 0 Russ from Berlin

Al2 19 January, 2008, 15:25

No. All that dip of a general has done is draw a gun used in the coldwar. Let's have another arms race, why not? The last one enabled America and Russia to build enough nuclear weapons to destroy the world 100 times over. What a great idea!! I can't really say what I think about this nummie that said it. [edited by RT]

permalink quote Al2

Sam 19 January, 2008, 16:13

Is it not confirming the obvious? All the nuclear superpowers had always had that policy. Guess Russian federation is just reminding everyone that they still have 6000 active warheads and 10,000 in storage.

permalink quote Sam

DD 19 January, 2008, 16:51

Things like these should never even be considered. We're not talking about candies here, but about total destruction of mankind. And especially Russia doesn't need it to consider because it has plenty of other means to defend itself perfecly. Besides, it makes people lose respect for Russia, as for now Russia is seen as a proud strong & civilised nation. These kind of statements are usually only done by lunatic US generals or presidents. They are the only ones who actually dropped this weapon on innocent human beings,twice! So please Russia, don't try to sink morally as deep as "the empire" has!! Greetings, from Brussels

permalink quote DD

Disillusioned 19 January, 2008, 18:21

Today the UN is a non-functioning, impotent, utterly useless instituition. It needs reforms and fast. It has utterly useless SCO members like Frnace/UK, who apart from their puny Nuclear hoards have nothing really to offer anything constructive. It should be reformed immediately bringing in countries like India, Brazil, Germany,South Afica in the UNSC. Today it has been proved like so many times in the past, as in Iraq, Vietnam,Bosnia, etc. that It is just a tool for some powers suffering from a WW2 hangover. And Kosovo crisis is the last straw that could break the camel's back. The world has to take note and act quickly, otherwhise, I'm afraid,this scenario could soon be a reality, if not from RF,then some other rogue states, which have the arsenal, but are non-revealing about it! At least RF has been a responsible power, unlike some, who REALLY like to throw their 'ugly'weight around!

permalink quote Disillusioned

Norman 19 January, 2008, 18:37

This was the scariest aspect of the Cold War era! I agree that it should not even be considered by a civilised nation like Russia. It would mean a response, and the destruction of Russian cities too. I believe that only rogue nations and terrorists would consider such an extreme option.

permalink quote Norman

Unneccesary 19 January, 2008, 18:57

Has anyone really considered the reason why this 'implied'threat/suggestion was made? Has anyone really considered why NATO today is in existence? Has anyone considered the plight of those millions of children/widows in Iraq/Afghanisthan who are suffering the ravages of war, because one state found it neccesary, to 'DEFEND'its own security, sitting thousands of miles away. Did the NATO 'hooligans' think that all countries have to surrender and all its citizens suffer, in order that people thousands of miles away live in 'SAFETY'. People use what they have and if the situation arrives, RF has all the right to use not only nuclear, but all chemical and biological/space weapons , as is being developed by powers, whose citizens are perhaps more 'EQUAL' than others. Has anyone considered why SONAR WEAPONS are being tried on poor unarmed Dolphins, after all they're not TERRORISTS?

permalink quote Unneccesary

avatar 19 January, 2008, 19:21

6th march,2007. BBC comment(atleast her washingtons correspondent's comments) on scooter LibBy's gulity verdit on 6th march,2007--"it does not matter to white house as long as iraq war turns out to be all right"!! for BBc illegal occupation of iraq and killing of million civilians does not matter -it will be al r ight for american occupation. This is human rights and democracy ala BBc and british propaganda. see and watch todays bbc and realize how much bbc and other british propaganda machinary is responsible for bush war crimes. He also assuredly told that this "white house is quite safe"as wished for by the british ofocurse. during gore-bush florida tussle bbc was advocating gore to leave bush alone as britian was waiting for american missile defence to come her shore soon and so no delay in small matter of who should be presidentof usa be allowed.d-bit belicve it? look at all british propaganda between 1st novembr till 20th novembr of 2000. it is high time that engish spies in american establishment be eliminated. it is high time that these english spies in usa are taken care of . may 25th, 2007. http://www.larouchepac.com/ LaRouche on Russian TV: "British Empire" Determined to have a war with Russia, China and India May 25 (LPAC)--The impact of Lyndon LaRouche's visit to Moscow last week is still being felt, with repeat broadcasts of LaRouche's interview in Moscow May 16, to the economist Mikhail Khazin, host of the "A+ in Economics" weekly program on the Spas Channel, a satellite TV station linked with the Russian Orthodox Church. The interview first aired on Friday, May 18, and was repeated several times. With "showdowns" looming between the Anglo-American-Euro bloc at the United Nations and Russia and China over Iran, and possibly over Kosovo, LaRouche identified the real war danger as coming from the British Empire--as he has described it--targeting Russia, China and India. LaRouche said: these protestant baptists((and so callled religious fundamentalists and evnagalicals bastards)) are the agents of england inside america and have always been. thse baptists are the ones who created civil war for the benefit of british to reconquer america and during attack of britian in 1812 these baptists were acting as enemy agents inside amaerica. these baptisat are called patrioit--now what a shame? the southern flag is sympbol of american patriotism when it was really an instrument of treachery to the american independence. " I am afraid the meddling small minded, fearful white boy is indicative of a large group of the amerikan types who still support a corrupt regieme of neo-con syncopants. He and those like him live in suspicion and fear of anyone different from themselves. He was once a settler who cut down and burned the forest of New England because he was afraid of the wildlife. He was once a trader who passed out smallpox blankets to the Indians. Then later a buffalo hunter who decimated entire herds and left them to rot on the plains. His grandfather herded Japanese into camps, his father was at MyLai. His brothers are at Abu Graib and Gitmo. Where will he be tommorrow?" " but all non-WASP got (and still get) their time as scapegoat-du-jour: Native, Black, Chinese, Irish, Italian, Jew, Japanese, Catholic, Latino, and now Middle-Eastern, just to name a few. Along with the scapegoating goes the profiling, which is little more than prejudice and stereotypes made legal." The recent director of Harvard’s Carr Center for Human Rights, Michael Ignatieff, proposed in the New York Times in May 2004 that we should give U.S. presidents the authority to preventively detain U.S. citizens and to engage in “coercive interrogations” should the United States experience another terrorist attack like 9/11. Ignatieff argued that “defeating terror requires violence” and “might also require coercion, secrecy, deception, even violation of rights.” “Sticking too firmly to the rule of law simply allows terrorists too much leeway to exploit our freedoms,” he said.[1] In addition to Harvard’s top human rights academic arguing on behalf of “torture lite,” Harvard Law School’s Alan Dershowitz supports “torture warrants” so that U.S. presidents can torture detainees in so-called “ticking bomb” cases. ================================================================== britain is the number one parasite nation of this world and is the main eviul brain behind american offensive (perpetual war) everywhere in the world. Why? Because only through american military might can a fourth rate country like england hope to have some influnce in the world. and the rest of the world is resopibnsible for this-why has aljarreza engagesd the british journalists like frost in the english version?lokk how much propaganda english eversion al zareeja is making agasint irana nd zimbawe -in otherworlds doing the bidding for british media and british govermnet lies. [part of the post has been removed] 4th June, 2007. President putin is wrong when he says that russia should or will target the missile on europe if america goes with anti missile defence plan in Europe. Russia must target (rather than should) the nuclear missiles with multiple war heads against all the cities, towns and big villages( including military instalations) of england because this cold war -like the one before- is being started by england for the benefit of english race only-.it is race war between the english parasite race versus the rest of the world-the sooner the rest of the world realizes that better it is for the world. look how germany wes villified soon after fall of soviet union-look how russia is being vilified immediately after Putin made russia strong. [part of the post has been removed] thse same british bastards talking of religious(chrisitan and muslim ) war propagandasie hispanics, iriash , ger,ams , french as not in american chritisan groups. they also do not think those white europeans to be thier kind which desreves to be in america-such is the evil propaganda of british spies inside america. . poland is nothing but a proxy for the british bastards.In fact poland and other east europeans were taken in hurriedly in E. U. only by the insistence of the british because british wanted to dilute the core group of europe that is france and germany 's influnce and make EU just an appendage of angloamerican power structure while in fact europe was started as a counter to angloamerican influnce-what a reversal of role! [part of the post has been removed]

permalink quote avatar

Al 19 January, 2008, 21:13

The comment was triggered by NATO's continued aggressive expansionism and to serve as a reminder that Russia will not tolerate an unabated military buildup on its borders nor that its friends and allies (and ultimately Russia itself) be subjected to further NATO terrorism.

permalink quote Al

MihalMihalich 19 January, 2008, 21:19

RE Norman - You might be legally retarded. Dear Ladies & Gentlemen CAUSALITY. 1. Once upon a time there was Cuban Missile Crisis (1962) when USSR communist dictator was placing tactical missiles with questionable range at U.S. borders. 2. No-name-yet Missile Crisis (2008) when U.S.A. president is placing missiles at Russian boarder. 1.1. In Cuban Missile Crisis Americans said that they would launch nukes unless those missiles are gone. They were ready to End this world… and that crisis was communist USSR fault. 2.1. In No-name-yet Missile Crisis Russians say we will change POLICY regarding use of military force and of cause nuclear weapons. (It is freaking naïve to think that this policy changes anything.) Democratic Americans placing those missiles and this crisis would be logically U.S. fault. Trust me when I say that hypothetically speaking Russia would win any war against anyone but United States. And United States can win against everyone but Russia because that is ONLY country in this little world that can reach US boarders. And because United States don’t have any means of intercepting Russian warheads not even with new THAAD, so they are going after missiles not warheads placing antimissile systems at very boarder. It is a noble idea from their point of view. I believe that same general recently gave interview in which he informed public that if Russian radars will detect a launch of a single U.S.-Warsaw antimissile in ANY direction it will AUTOMATICLY launch actual NUKES on Washington and New-York. Why? Because those missiles have signature oh tactical nuclear missiles and they are capable of reaching Moscow in matter of minutes. What GOOD does antimissile system do if it starts WW3 and ends the world? (note. If any country does long range missile testing they give 1-month notice to US & Russia for that very reason) U.S congress is cutting funding to the antimissile project as far as I know. Hopefully new president will have wisdom and won’t provoke second Cuban Missile Crisis. Best wishes & regards PS There might be minor inaccurate time frames in my post.

permalink quote MihalMihalich

Andy 19 January, 2008, 21:19

I fail to understand why, in the advanced world, in which we now live, politicians can't see deeper than old mis-understandings. Russian culture is different from English but still the Uk persists in mis-reporting the fact that Russia can not easily extradite Lugavoy, stating that Russia simply "refuses" to extradite him and not that they can't without changing their constitution. Then they use this as a poor excuse for escalating differences. Not much is known about the real Russia in the UK so this blatant misuse of facts just makes mis-understandings worse and creates an incorrect picture of Russia. It seems that there is some other reason why the UK and Russia want to disagree for a while. Very sad in a modern world to see this.

permalink quote Andy

Vusi 19 January, 2008, 23:09

If Russia wants to remain a free country it should continue on this stance. The USA and it western European allies want to have the whole world under their control and since Russia is a country that want multilateral world the USA and it allies view it in a bad light. The choice is Russia’s to stand for it right to freedom and prosperity or allow the USA to turn Russia into another of it outpost.

permalink quote Vusi

John 19 January, 2008, 23:27

Russia is entitled to defend herself and her allies againt attack. If the Russian security services know an attack is imminent, it is logical to strike first. Does NATO honestly believe that the rest of world believes that they wouldn't do likewise? Anyway, going on recent history, the countries most likely to lash out wildly ignoring the UN are the USA and USA backed Israel.

permalink quote John

Marzipan6 20 January, 2008, 05:41

If a country, including Russia, has genuine evidence of an imminent massive attack against it, a pre-emptive strike is likely to be entirely sensible. Under such circumstances it would be foolish to simply wait and do nothing. In Russia’s case, however, the world has reason to be wary of Russia’s judgment. In 1939, for instance, Russia’s “pre-emptive strike” against danger posed by Nazi Germany was to enter into practical alliance with it under the terms of the infamous Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. Thereafter, until Germany attacked Russia, Russia provided resources to the Nazi army as it went on its way of conquest through Europe. Worse, according to then-secret protocols attached to the Pact, Berlin and Moscow divided Europe between them, into respective “spheres of influence”, and each agreed to give the other a free hand in conquering their assigned part of the continent. In accordance with the terms of those protocols, Moscow immediately invaded the Baltic countries, annexed them to the Soviet Union, and commenced mass repressions against them. It returned in 1944 and maintained its illegal control until 1991, though what it was “pre-empting” against remains unclear. Even though post-Soviet Russia has renounced the Molotov- Ribbentrop Pact as a document, to this day, from its President on down, it continues to justify the Baltic aggression that Moscow committed under the terms of that document. As well, Russia continues to find offence and threats in actions of countries where no offence and and no threat is intended. One therefore cannot have over-much confidence in the correctness or ethics of whatever the next “pre-emptive strike” may be that Moscow may judge it needs to make. The principle of pre-emption is great, but the record of its application by Moscow is fairly lamentable.

permalink quote Marzipan6

dan 20 January, 2008, 10:08

Why is Russia talking war all the time.I fail to understand why a country can build 120 nuclear subs and god knows how many missiles and tanks ETc.How many times do you want to destroy the world?I think the money would be better spent on roads that people can drive on as opposed to the terrible pot holed ones you have.Pavements that your citizens can walk on without falling over in the holes.And of course clean up the rubbish all around the towns.The list goes on and on.Cant you see it?

permalink quote dan

David 20 January, 2008, 11:45

If the perception is there doubled with the facts i.e. actual missiles posted on Russia's borders, why not? So, the answer, in my view is YES

permalink quote David

O.S. 20 January, 2008, 13:45

"MAD is dead." - Donald Rumsfeld

permalink quote O.S.

Roger 20 January, 2008, 14:55

This is the first time I have read your column and as a Patiotic American I agree with President Putins concerns about non Russian Missles on Russias borders.I dont think it will serve our national interest.I do think that Russia better give some serious thouht to an Alliance with the Mad dogs in Teheran,Iran but no body ever blamed the Russians for learning from their past mistakes (ie.Nazi Germany 1938-39)

permalink quote Roger

Generalisimo 20 January, 2008, 15:58

I doubt anyone will try to attack Russia. Any attack on Russia would require an enormous buildup over months so it would be pretty obvious. Also I dont think its a good thing when nukes start flying because a whole lot of people are gonna get hurt. I think what the Russian general was saying is that if Russia is forced to defend itself in a serious way you can count on yourself being burnt to a crisp by its nukes - so better to think twice about what you do against Russia.

permalink quote Generalisimo

JC 20 January, 2008, 22:03

Yes, any strike that is guaranteed to neutralize the enemy should be used- without intending to cause human deaths.

permalink quote JC

Russ from Berlin 20 January, 2008, 22:09

If Mr Dubya stations his missiles in the Czech Republic, Russia will have no alternative but to station similar missiles in Cuba and/or maybe Venenezuela. Why so? Remember the "Cuba missile crisis" of the mid-1960s, when the USSR stationed missiles in Cuba in response to the stationing of US missiles in Turkey, where they were within 11 minutes' striking distance of Moscow? Humanity then was within a hair's breadth of extinction. But the difference between then and now is that the USSR was a rational state facing an irrational and hence unpredictable opponent (over 20% of Americans believe in the second coming). I don't know the percentage in Russia, but it's probably not much smaller today. So the likelihood of an Armageddon the Bushy fundamentalists are hoping for may indeed be just around the corner. Oh well, if that's humanity's goal, at least there won't be any of us left to worry about global warming.

permalink quote Russ from Berlin

Name*
Country, City
Valid e-mail*
Text*
Enter digits below*

	*Required fields