Russian Fears

**rickusn** · 11 Nov 07,, 15:04

As It Rises, Russia Stirs Baltic Fears

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/11/we...html?ref=world

This fear of Russia is what drove former East Bloc nations to NATO in the first place.

And this article is from the NY Times no less.

And while the Baltic pipeline has been played down it is a really big deal.

And it harkens back memories of other Russian/German Pacts drawn up at the expense of their neighbors.

**Ironduke** · 13 Nov 07,, 11:44

Yes, NATO and EU membership are definitely a way for former Soviet and Warsaw Pact nations to escape the Bear... but I'd hardly characterize the Russo-German pipeline as anything like the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact. IIRC, Poland wants money, free gas, control over the pipeline, something like that. Western Europe needs Russian gas and bypassing a quarrelsome neighbor such as Poland makes economic sense.

**JohnFlint1985** · 17 Nov 07,, 22:02

Here is an interesting link for you guy to take a look at I will reprint the first post there

SkyscraperCity

Putin warns Europe in missile row

Moscow may target weapons at Europe if the US builds planned missile defence facilities in the region, Russian President Vladimir Putin has said.

Russia has not pointed missiles towards Europe since the end of the Cold War.

Last week, Russia said it had tested a ballistic missile to maintain "strategic balance" in the world.

The US wants to expand its missile defences into Eastern Europe. It says the system is not aimed at Russia but Moscow says its security is threatened.

'Not our fault'

Mr Putin made the comments in an interview published in Italian newspaper Corriere Della Sera ahead of the G8 meeting which starts in Germany on Wednesday.

[If the American nuclear potential grows in European territory, we have to give ourselves new targets in Europe
President Vladimir Putin]

He repeated warnings that the US defence shield could lead to a new arms race but said it would the fault of the Americans if this happened.

He said the US had "altered the strategic balance" by unilaterally pulling out of the anti-ballistic missile (ABM) treaty in 2002.

"If the American nuclear potential grows in European territory, we have to give ourselves new targets in Europe," Mr Putin said.

"It is up to our military to define these targets, in addition to defining the choice between ballistic and cruise missiles."

US President George W Bush is due to meet Mr Putin at the three-day G8 summit in the German resort of Heiligendamm.

Washington wants to deploy interceptor rockets in Poland and a radar base in the Czech Republic to counter what it describes as a potential threat from "rogue states" such as Iran and North Korea.

Last Tuesday, Russia tested an RS-24 missile that successfully struck its target 5,500km (3,400 miles) away.

It was designed to evade missile defence systems, Russia's defence ministry said.
Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/h...pe/6717119.stm

Published: 2007/06/03 17:32:13 GMT

**rickusn** · 18 Nov 07,, 03:54

"but I'd hardly characterize the Russo-German pipeline as anything like the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact. "

Yup your right its worse.

**JohnFlint1985** · 19 Nov 07,, 05:58

Originally Posted by rickusn

"but I'd hardly characterize the Russo-German pipeline as anything like the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact. "

Yup your right its worse.

My understanding is this - Germany understands it has no other choice for now - so they play the game using Russian rules... for now. As of today Russian press announced that Turkmenistan which has huge natural gas reserves will built EU/USA sponsored pipeline to Europe through Caspian see around Russian pipelines making itself direct competitor of Russian and Iranian natural gas supplier. Before this - natural gas was transported into Europe using Russian pipeline and was sold by Russians exclusively so Russia charged about a 120% more on top of the price it paid to Turkmenistan for the transport and selling of this gas to Europe. Now this role will come to an end - due to the fact that gas will be under Turkmenistan control and western companies (who will build the pipeline) will provide the means for that.
we should await news from this corner of the world quite soon - it is a very aggressive and "unfriendly" step from the Russian point of view. So just watch ASHABAD news carefully in the coming months.

**Bella** · 26 Nov 07,, 00:37

Like I have said a few times before, I'm not no millitary expert, but is the U.S. deploying nuclear missles to Europe? If not, then why would they target European countries if no missles are targeted at them? It sounds to me, in my non-perfessional opinion, that Russia is mad at the fact that it can not build a missle defence system like the U.S.
From what I know little about, I've always thought that the U.S. was building the defence shield against countries like North Korea, China, Iran, ect...to protect it's alleys. I don't know. That is what I always thought.

**Officer of Engineers** · 26 Nov 07,, 04:34

France and the UK are still nuclear forces to contend with.

**Blademaster** · 26 Nov 07,, 06:54

What is their nuclear weapon stockpile?

**Officer of Engineers** · 26 Nov 07,, 07:05

Operationally, the Brits have 200 warheads and the French is estimated at 300.

**Blademaster** · 26 Nov 07,, 07:11

Does the French still have a nuclear triad or are they shifting their entire nuclear warload to SSBNs?

**Officer of Engineers** · 26 Nov 07,, 07:15

Aircraft delivered and SLBMs.

**physicsmonk** · 26 Nov 07,, 08:03

Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers

Aircraft delivered and SLBMs.

Sir, should india also take this route? I mean with advances in sat surveillance wouldnt land based missiles be very vulnerable? Unless we also want to adopt the artillery barrage technique of PLA that you mentioned.

**Dago** · 26 Nov 07,, 08:20

Originally Posted by physicsmonk

Sir, should india also take this route? I mean with advances in sat surveillance wouldnt land based missiles be very vulnerable? Unless we also want to adopt the artillery barrage technique of PLA that you mentioned.

IMHO, its as of necessity. Not just for concealment purposes, but of deterrence all three levels. However, as such, the likelihood of them actually them being used increases. See Russia. They make no secret of there reliance of there nuclear arsenal in response to all out war against possible conventional threats. What would come of afterwards is anyones guess.

However, India will most likely inherit SLBM within the coming, it's simply invertible. Look at France's reliance. There is a reason. On the World Stage, SLBM is the most survivable. Not to mention logistically and it's ability to project in all continents of the region. Simply Added level of deterrence that Land based.

As far as ALCM's, It would certainly be in response to Pakistanis ability to do the same. Within the same theater, and the ability of a neighbor to deliver tactical munitions in any given area, doesn't exactly bold well. To say the least.

**~~Feanor~~** · 26 Nov 07,, 08:54

Consider that mobile missile launchers can easily be seen from orbiting sattelites, given their size. This makes their main benefit, concealment, and thus difficulty to destroy, a moot point. They become easy targets for enemy nuclear and even non-nuclear strikes.

**Blademaster** · 26 Nov 07,, 14:59

During the Gulf War, US went out of their way to look for mobile Scud missile launchers and could only find 13 of them while many Scuds were fired at Israel and Saudi Arabia. That tells you mobile missile launchers may be viable. At least Russia is going for mobile missiles.