Page 1 of 15 12345678910 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 217

Thread: Russian Military Doctrine

  1. #1
    Military Professional
    Join Date
    09 Aug 03
    Posts
    1,317

    Russian Military Doctrine

    General Gareyev Says Russia Changing Its Military Doctrine : Strategic Defence and Security : Defense News Air Force Army Navy News

    Strategic Defence and Security News
    General Gareyev Says Russia Changing Its Military Doctrine
    Viktor Litovkin, RIA Novosti | Jan 19, 2007
    Digg this Story | Send Article | Printer Friendly | Discuss

    Moscow: The Academy of Military Sciences will hold a conference in the Defense Ministry in Moscow on January 20. Its president, Army General Makhmut Gareyev, will deliver a report on Russia's new military doctrine. Military leaders and academics will discuss the changes and amendments to this key document, which will be presented to the military community. General Gareyev discusses the new doctrine in an interview with Viktor Litovkin.

    Question: Why is Russia going to adopt a new military doctrine? What new features will it have? Why does it concern the Academy of Military Sciences, a public organization?

    Answer: The creation of a new military doctrine has been prompted by considerable changes in the geopolitical and military-political situation, as well as in the nature of the threats to security that have emerged since the endorsement of the current doctrine in 2000. We have now specified the tasks facing the military and other defense forces. The government system, the social and economic standards, and the demographic situation have also changed.

    Moreover, some provisions of the current doctrine have become obsolete. They do not reflect recent developments and do not help enhance national security. This is why we have to draw up and make into law new views on our national defense.

    The military doctrine embodies the government's views on ensuring the country's security, resisting threats, and preventing wars and armed conflicts; it reflects official ideas on military development and on preparing the nation and its armed forces to defend the fatherland. The doctrine also deals with ways of conducting armed (and other) conflicts in the nation's defense.

    Russian President Vladimir Putin charged military leaders with the task of formulating a new military doctrine in June 2005. This task cannot be resolved without a new concept of national security. It would be helpful if the military community and authorities from the Academy of Military Sciences had their say on this question. In the 1920s, the whole nation and the army were discussing the military doctrine and the program of military reform suggested by Mikhail Frunze. Not only political and military leaders but also rank-and-file soldiers and citizens understood what the doctrine was all about.

    I believe that the military doctrine, which is the government's declaration of its defense policy, should be openly presented to the nation and the rest of the world. We are not going to hide anything or intrigue against anyone.

    Q: What is the gist of the military doctrine?

    A: We must analyze what threatens Russia's security and what we should do to provide for an adequate defense. We should then define what military organization we need in order to neutralize and repel potential threats. We should define potential ways of using our armed forces and other troops, as well as the types of wars and armed conflicts that we could encounter today and up to the year 2015. This will determine the direction of military training and education. The main point is that we should know how to prepare the nation for defense, primarily in the economic, military-political, and moral arenas.

    It is necessary to avoid excessive emphasis on politics and ideology, instead concentrating on practical efforts to build up defenses.

    Ecological and energy factors will be the main causes of political and military conflicts in the next 10-15 years. Some states will try to control the energy resources of others, as happened in Iraq, while others will have no choice but to resist or die. Sooner or later, the world community will have to limit, regulate, and drastically change the scale and nature of production.

    If the UN, other world organizations, the governments of leading countries, and major multinational corporations fail to regulate production and consumption, the survival of many nations may be in peril. Political, economic, or armed confrontation could occur as a result. The huge gap between the living standards of the "golden billion" and the rest of the world might lead to terrorism and a war of "everyone against everyone." This is one of the potential threats to our security. Needless to say, poverty is not the only cause of terrorism. North Korea and Cuba are poor countries, but they have not produced terrorists. Those who attacked the U.S. in 2001 were far from being poor.

    Nevertheless, the character of threats will largely depend upon the world's future political structure. It is becoming increasingly obvious that even such a superpower as the United States cannot cope with its self-assumed burden of leadership and responsibility. Its Democratic Party is not the only domestic force that suggests sharing this burden with other leading powers.

    Reality and pragmatism should motivate even the thickest Congressmen to think once again about which is better: to treat Russia as a partner, or as an enemy that must be neutralized. It is perfectly obvious that not a single serious issue in the modern world can be resolved without Russia. We don't need confrontation with the U.S., or with the West, or the East.

    It is abundantly clear that there is no alternative to a multi-polar world with major centers of influence (the U.S., European Union, Russia, China, and India). The current alignment of the world's forces makes it more rational for Russia to cooperate - while always relying on the UN - with NATO, the OSCE, EU, China, India and other interested countries, in order to persistently resist confrontation-prone politics in the world arena and seek the adoption of international legal standards that would ban aggression against other countries. In a multi-polar world, other interested countries and organizations could support a campaign for a fundamental improvement in international relations.

    The analysis of trends in the development of the world situation suggests that Washington's political course will inevitably lead to confrontation with many countries. Under the circumstances, Russia will have to act as a geopolitical arbiter for objective reasons. On the one hand, it is necessary to show restraint in defining and upholding national interests. A country should be tough only when it comes to its vital interests. On the other hand, national interests should not be underestimated. Otherwise, opportunities for economic development and the use of geopolitical factors will be limited. At the same time, the postwar years showed that extreme and unrealistic conceptions of national interests and attempts to defend them at all costs engendered confrontational foreign policy and military doctrines, undermined economies, and totally destroyed those misinterpreted national goals. We should not allow this to happen.

    Q: What threats to Russian security will be covered by the new military doctrine? What will the armed forces have to do in this context?

    A: This is one of the most complicated questions and the one where opinions differ the most. There are two approaches to the problem. The first one is included in the new doctrine, which is oriented only to military threats and means of resisting them militarily. The advocates of the second approach suggest proceeding from the fundamental military-political changes in the world and taking into account a broad range of military and other threats, for instance, in politics, diplomacy, the economy and information. The Soviet Union's disintegration, Yugoslavia's collapse, and "color" revolutions in Georgia, Ukraine, and Kyrgyzstan make it plain that the main threats are carried out not so much militarily as by covert methods.

    This leads to the conclusion that military and non-military threats should be viewed as an integral whole. Social, political, economic, territorial, religious, national and ethnic disputes between regions and states remain the main potential causes of an aggravation of the military-political situation in Russia.

    To begin with, if we were to generalize about the numerous and versatile threats we face today, the list would include above all the efforts of certain international forces and leading countries to encroach on Russia's sovereignty and prejudice its economic and other interests; different forms of political and informational pressure and subversion, as was the case in Ukraine, Georgia, and Kyrgyzstan; and territorial claims along the entire length of our borders. The threat to energy security is becoming particularly serious for us. Top NATO leaders view even a change in prices for energy resources as a kind of aggression. Hence, our task is to prevent, localize and neutralize such threats by political, diplomatic, economic, informational, and other non-military methods.

    Secondly, the use of nuclear arms and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction continue to threaten Russia. The nuclear weapons of all major nuclear powers are ultimately designed to be used against Russia, whether we want to admit it or not. In this context, the task of curbing a potential aggressor by means of a strategic nuclear deterrent is becoming more important than in the past.

    Thirdly, there are military threats to Russia, including a risk of armed conflicts and even a large-scale war. The leading powers are clearly trying to leap towards military-technical predominance; powerful armed formations on Russia's borders are sharply upsetting the military balance. NATO is expanding its sphere of operations and intends to act on a global scale.

    At home, the most dangerous threats are terrorism and separatism, which are usually provoked from outside to disrupt Russia's unity and territorial integrity.

    In this context, the military doctrine should provide for the readiness of the armed forces and other troops to carry out combat missions in local armed conflicts and counterterrorist operations, and to be mobilized for large-scale regional wars.

    The world's leading countries (Russia, China, the U.S. and other NATO members) face common threats that can only be neutralized by common efforts. In view of this, the Russian military doctrine should contain provisions that align it with the military doctrines of other countries, particularly in the fight against terrorism.

    Transnational dangers can only be resisted by transnational mechanisms. It is also possible to demarcate zones of responsibility between NATO and the CSTO [Collective Security Treaty Organization].

    Q: What do you think about the doctrine's provision on a possible first strike using nuclear arms?

    A: Future wars are likely to be conducted with high-precision conventional arms in the context of a permanent nuclear threat. If Russia is faced with an extremely unfavorable alignment of forces in all strategic directions, nuclear weapons will remain the most important and reliable strategic deterrent against foreign aggression.

    At the same time, the effectiveness of nuclear weapons should not be overestimated. It would be wrong to assume that Russia's security is guaranteed as long as it has nuclear weapons. The Soviet Union had nuclear arms, but it does not exist anymore. These weapons are not universal. They cannot be used in such conflicts as in Chechnya, or to neutralize economic, information, and other forms of aggression.

    Now that the potential of our space-based weapons, missile warning system, and strategic nuclear force has decreased, we may not be capable even of effective retaliation against a potential enemy, not to mention a launch-under-attack strike. Therefore, we should maintain and build up our nuclear deterrent. The doctrine should also pay attention to the development of general-purpose forces: the air force, navy, and ground troops. Russia has a vast territory, and it will not be able to cope without strong general-purpose forces if it has to deal with an invasion by ground troops of a potential enemy in the east and south.

    The new military doctrine pays attention to the transformation of the armed forces, the development of an integrated air and space defense system, the use of contact and non-contact methods of warfare, the conduct of active pre-emptive strikes, and other vital issues of military development, including the formation of mixed units and detachments consisting of professionals and draftees, all of which simply cannot be described in a short interview.

    Nevertheless, the new doctrine will be based on the concept of active defense. The Russian president will endorse it in line with our Constitution. But it will become viable only when it wins the support of the military community and public, and when it unites the majority of our people, who are not indifferent to the fate of our homeland.

  2. #2
    Staff Emeritus
    Military Professional
    Contrary by Nature.
    zraver's Avatar
    Join Date
    22 Oct 06
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    15,003
    I wonde rif Russia will stop it's energy blackmail of Europe? Or admit thier own failed domestic policies ar ehte cause of sepratist desires. I see alot of czarist/Bolshevik era we got to get them before they get us mentaility.

  3. #3
    Military Professional
    Join Date
    09 Aug 03
    Posts
    1,317
    I find it quite a belligerent and anti-US stance with no basis in fact or reality..

    And paranoid:

    "...powerful armed formations on Russia's borders... "

    "The nuclear weapons of all major nuclear powers are ultimately designed to be used against Russia..."

    I think its whole tone is that of a nation that has no purpose or direction other than that of the past Cold War paradigm.

    I dont believe Russia can survive unless the U.S. can be portrayed as the enemy.

    It would be scary if it wasnt so pathetic.

  4. #4

    Join Date
    05 Sep 05
    Posts
    643
    Quote Originally Posted by rickusn View Post
    I find it quite a belligerent and anti-US stance with no basis in fact or reality..

    And paranoid:

    "...powerful armed formations on Russia's borders... "

    "The nuclear weapons of all major nuclear powers are ultimately designed to be used against Russia..."

    I think its whole tone is that of a nation that has no purpose or direction other than that of the past Cold War paradigm.

    I dont believe Russia can survive unless the U.S. can be portrayed as the enemy.

    It would be scary if it wasnt so pathetic.
    how else are they going to justify expanded military spending?
    How is that different from Americans pumping up this China threat propoganda?

  5. #5
    Defense Professional Dreadnought's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 May 05
    Location
    Philadelphia, PA.
    Posts
    14,728
    Just one little "move" in the great game of Middle East "chess"
    Fortitude.....The strength to persist...The courage to endure.

  6. #6
    Military Professional Ray's Avatar
    Join Date
    20 Aug 03
    Posts
    19,624
    I reckon Russian does not see the world from the view West sees it.

    It is odd for anyone to feel that they SHOULD see it the way the West does.

    Hence, their threat analysis will be different.

    Nothing unusual really and nothing that should worry anyone about.

    Just be prepared and that is about all.


    "Some have learnt many Tricks of sly Evasion, Instead of Truth they use Equivocation, And eke it out with mental Reservation, Which is to good Men an Abomination."

    I don't have to attend every argument I'm invited to.

    HAKUNA MATATA

  7. #7
    WAB BOUNCER Senior Contributor Stan187's Avatar
    Join Date
    24 Nov 06
    Posts
    2,617
    Quote Originally Posted by rickusn View Post
    North Korea and Cuba are poor countries, but they have not produced terrorists. .
    I guess those guys infiltrating South Korea were just looking for hug and some R & R.
    In Iran people belive pepsi stands for pay each penny save israel. -urmomma158
    The Russian Navy is still a threat, but only to those unlucky enough to be Russian sailors.-highsea

  8. #8
    Banned
    Join Date
    02 Jan 07
    Location
    Russia
    Posts
    673
    The United States has asked to start talks on siting part of a controversial anti-missile system on Czech soil, Czech Prime Minister Mirek Topolanek said on Saturday. "Late last night we were informed that they would like to launch negotiations over the possible siting of an anti-ballistic missile defence system in our country. Concretely, this would be a radar station," Topolanek announced at a news conference.

    The official US request came within minutes of Topolanek's centre-right government, which backs Czech participation in the US defence system, being confirmed in power. The confirmation came in a crucial parliamentary confidence vote which ended more than seven months of political deadlock.

    Washington wants to deploy 10 interceptor missiles and a radar in Europe to reinforce its defences against the perceived threat of a ballistic missile attack from North Korea or Iran.
    US Requests Official Talks Over Czech Anti-Missile Installation
    ---

    Is that a paranoia? Paranoia is the waiting for North Korean missiles in Czech Republic. Where is North Korea and where is Czech.
    Everyone understand against whom this anti-missile system is. The USA try to depreciate the Russian nuclear weapon and create instability near the Russian borders, of course, Russia need to react. The sad experience of Yugoslavia shows that it is better to consider paranoid threats than to not consider real ones.
    And I don’t see any big failures in Russia’s domestic policies. From my point of view - are very more successful last years. As for “energy blackmail of Europe”, this is a propagandist myth that haven’t got any confirmation in reality.

  9. #9
    WAB BOUNCER Senior Contributor Stan187's Avatar
    Join Date
    24 Nov 06
    Posts
    2,617
    Quote Originally Posted by MrFirst View Post
    ---

    Is that a paranoia? Paranoia is the waiting for North Korean missiles in Czech Republic. Where is North Korea and where is Czech.
    Everyone understand against whom this anti-missile system is. The USA try to depreciate the Russian nuclear weapon and create instability near the Russian borders, of course, Russia need to react.
    The instability comes from Russia not being able to control and account for all of its nuclear armaments, not from other countries attempting to make sure that if those missiles go off they will be able to intercept them.

    QUOTE=MrFirst;333153]As for “energy blackmail of Europe”, this is a propagandist myth that haven’t got any confirmation in reality.[/QUOTE]

    So the Russians didn't ever try to use control of oil and natural gas as an extension of their foreign policy? And Ukraine and Belarus haven't had any interruptions in their supplies via pipelines in the last year? And it doesn't have any strained relations with say Georgia, or Moldova, or its other neighbors that it tries to stronghand?

    Interesting reality you live in, buddy.
    In Iran people belive pepsi stands for pay each penny save israel. -urmomma158
    The Russian Navy is still a threat, but only to those unlucky enough to be Russian sailors.-highsea

  10. #10
    Staff Emeritus
    Military Professional
    Contrary by Nature.
    zraver's Avatar
    Join Date
    22 Oct 06
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    15,003
    Quote Originally Posted by MrFirst View Post
    ---

    Is that a paranoia? Paranoia is the waiting for North Korean missiles in Czech Republic. Where is North Korea and where is Czech.
    Everyone understand against whom this anti-missile system is. The USA try to depreciate the Russian nuclear weapon and create instability near the Russian borders, of course, Russia need to react. The sad experience of Yugoslavia shows that it is better to consider paranoid threats than to not consider real ones.
    And I don’t see any big failures in Russia’s domestic policies. From my point of view - are very more successful last years. As for “energy blackmail of Europe”, this is a propagandist myth that haven’t got any confirmation in reality.
    trace a line from Iran to Berlin, Paris, Copenhagen, and London what country do they pass over? Now trace a line from Russia to those same cities and what country do they not pass over? hint- Chezk republic. if the US wante dto build a system to reduce Russia's nuclear strike cpaability vs europe it would place systems in the Baltic, Norway, and Poland.

    Also ask the Ukraine, Belarus, and Poland about Russia's energy blackmail scheme.

  11. #11
    Patron Alex_Ivanov's Avatar
    Join Date
    18 Jul 06
    Location
    Russia
    Posts
    202
    Looks like it needs to be repeated 1000 times... Rising prices is hardly a blackmail for three reasons:
    1. previous price was lower than any imaginable market price.
    2. Step-by-step transition to market prices was proposed.
    3. Nobody forced customers to buy products they did not want to buy.

    And finally, let's not forget, that supply interruption was caused not by Russia in both cases, but by those who stole gas of european customers (Ukraine's case), or simply shut the valve (Belorus' case). That's why Russia proposed projects like Nord Stream, to guarantee supply of Europe regardless of inadequate behaviour of bankrupt countries between us.

  12. #12
    Military Professional Ray's Avatar
    Join Date
    20 Aug 03
    Posts
    19,624
    Last edited by Ray; 23 Jan 07, at 05:22.


    "Some have learnt many Tricks of sly Evasion, Instead of Truth they use Equivocation, And eke it out with mental Reservation, Which is to good Men an Abomination."

    I don't have to attend every argument I'm invited to.

    HAKUNA MATATA

  13. #13
    WAB BOUNCER Senior Contributor Stan187's Avatar
    Join Date
    24 Nov 06
    Posts
    2,617
    Quote Originally Posted by Alex_Ivanov View Post
    Looks like it needs to be repeated 1000 times... Rising prices is hardly a blackmail for three reasons:
    1. previous price was lower than any imaginable market price.
    2. Step-by-step transition to market prices was proposed.
    3. Nobody forced customers to buy products they did not want to buy.

    And finally, let's not forget, that supply interruption was caused not by Russia in both cases, but by those who stole gas of european customers (Ukraine's case), or simply shut the valve (Belorus' case). That's why Russia proposed projects like Nord Stream, to guarantee supply of Europe regardless of inadequate behaviour of bankrupt countries between us.
    I have a strong feeling that there will be a pipeline running from the Caucusus to Europe, completely skipping Russian BS. At the end of the day, they don't care why you're shutting it down, the Europeans simply want the supply not to be shut down. The NGO I'm working for is actually involved in a project in Georgia doing just that, bypassing the Russians.
    In Iran people belive pepsi stands for pay each penny save israel. -urmomma158
    The Russian Navy is still a threat, but only to those unlucky enough to be Russian sailors.-highsea

  14. #14
    Military Professional Ray's Avatar
    Join Date
    20 Aug 03
    Posts
    19,624
    The TRACECA Program (Transport System Europe-Caucasus-Asia, informally known as the Great Silk Road) was launched at a European Union (EU) conference in 1993. The EU conference brought together trade and transport ministers from the Central Asian and Caucasian republics to initiate a transport corridor on an West-East axis from Europe, across the Black Sea, through the Caucasus and the Caspian Sea to Central Asia. In September 1998, twelve countries (including Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Kazakhstan, Romania, Turkey, and Uzbekistan) signed a multilateral agreement known as the Baku Declaration to develop the transport corridor through closer economic integration of member countries, rehabilitation and development of new transportation infrastructure, and by fostering stability and trust in the region. In addition, the EU has sponsored the INOGATE program, which appraises oil and gas exports routes from Central Asia and the Caspian, and routes for shipping energy to Europe. INOGATE is run through the EU's TACIS program

    However, there is some question as to whether Europe is the right destination for Caspian oil and gas. Oil demand over the next 10-15 years in Europe is expected to grow by little more than 1 million bbl/d. Oil exports eastward, on the other hand, could serve Asian markets, where demand for oil is expected to grow by 10 million bbl/d over the next 10-15 years. To feed this Asian demand, though, would necessitate building the world's longest pipelines. Geographical considerations would force these pipelines to head north of the impassable mountains of Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan across the vast, desolate Kazakh steppe, thereby adding even more length (and cost) to any eastward pipelines.

    An additional way for Caspian region exporters to supply Asian demand would be to pipe oil and gas south. This would mean sending oil and gas through either Afghanistan or Iran. The Afghanistan option, which Turkmenistan has been promoting, would entail building oil and gas pipelines across war-torn Afghan territory to reach markets in Pakistan and possibly India. The Iranian route for gas would pipe Caspian region gas (from Azerbaijan, Uzbekistan, and Turkmenistan) to Iran's southern coast, then eastward to Pakistan, while the oil route would take oil to the Persian Gulf, then load it onto tankers for further trans-shipment. However, any significant investment in Iran would be problematic under the Iran and Libya Sanctions Act, which imposes sanctions on non-U.S. companies investing in the Iranian oil and gas sectors. U.S. companies already are prohibited from conducting business with Iran under U.S. law.

    For its part, Russia itself has proposed multiple pipeline routes that utilize Russian export pipelines that transport oil to new export outlets being developed on the Baltic and Mediterranean Seas. Russia is set to complete its Baltic Sea port at Primorsk later this year, and the country is working with Croatia to connect the Adria pipeline with the southern Druzhba pipeline. Reversing the flows in the Adria pipeline and tying it to the southern Druzhba route would allow oil exports from the Caspian to run via Russia's pipeline system, across Ukraine and Hungary, and then terminate at the Croatian deep-sea Adriatic port of Omisalj. In addition, Russia already has the most extensive natural gas network in the region, and the system's capacity could be increased to allow for additional Caspian region gas exports via Russia.

    However, there are political and security questions as to whether the newly independent states of the former Soviet Union should rely on Russia (or any other country) as their sole export outlet, and Caspian region producers have expressed their desire to diversify their export options. In addition, most of the existing Russian oil export pipelines terminate at the Russian Black Sea port of Novorossiisk, requiring tankers to transit the Black Sea and pass through the Bosporus Straits in order to gain access to the Mediterranean and world markets. Turkey has raised concerns about the ability of the Bosporus Straits, already a major chokepoint for oil tankers, to handle additional tanker traffic. Already, Turkey has stated its environmental concerns about a possible collision (and ensuing oil spill) in the Straits as a result of increased tanker traffic from the launch of the Caspian Pipeline Consortium's (CPC) Tengiz-Novorossiisk pipeline in March 2001. The first tanker with CPC oil is not scheduled to be loaded at Novorossiisk until August 6, 2001, but already there are a number of options under consideration for oil transiting the Black Sea to bypass the Bosporus Straits.

    In almost any direction, Caspian region export pipelines may be subject to regional conflict, an additional complication in determining final routes. The Uzbek government is dealing with the threat of rising Islamic fundamentalism in Uzbekistan, Afghanistan remains scarred by over 20 years of war, the Azerbaijan-Armenia war over the Armenian-populated Nagorno-Karabakh enclave in Azerbaijan has yet to be resolved, separatist conflicts in Abkhazia and Ossetia in Georgia flared in the mid-1990's, and Russia's war with Chechnya has devastated the region around Grozny in southern Russia.

    Nevertheless, several export pipelines from the Caspian region already are completed or under construction, and Caspian region exports are already transiting the Caucasus. While the hope is that export pipelines will provide an economic boost to the region, thereby bringing peace and prosperity to the troubled Caucasus and Caspian regions in the long run, the fear is that in the short-term, the fierce competition over pipeline routes and export options will lead to greater instability.


    "Some have learnt many Tricks of sly Evasion, Instead of Truth they use Equivocation, And eke it out with mental Reservation, Which is to good Men an Abomination."

    I don't have to attend every argument I'm invited to.

    HAKUNA MATATA

  15. #15
    Banned
    Join Date
    02 Jan 07
    Location
    Russia
    Posts
    673
    Quote Originally Posted by Stan187 View Post
    The instability comes from Russia not being able to control and account for all of its nuclear armaments, not from other countries attempting to make sure that if those missiles go off they will be able to intercept them.
    Why do you think Russia is not able to control and account for its nuclear armaments? Russia has a huge missile arsenal for many years and I haven’t heard anything about nuclear control problems.

    Quote Originally Posted by Stan187 View Post
    So the Russians didn't ever try to use control of oil and natural gas as an extension of their foreign policy? And Ukraine and Belarus haven't had any interruptions in their supplies via pipelines in the last year? And it doesn't have any strained relations with say Georgia, or Moldova, or its other neighbors that it tries to stronghand?
    The main problem of Ukraine, Belarus, Georgia and Moldova is that they want to be independent from Russia, but they sharply don’t want to be independent from cheap Russian gas and oil. Russia just demanded to pay full value for its products that is paid by European countries, nothing more. While Germany and Poland pay for gas $250, why Ukraine is allowed to pay only $50? Now, after numerous cries and scandals from other side Russia have managed to rise the cost to $100 for these countries. As for Georgia, it would be wondering if Russia continued the policy of economic preferences for this hostile state. Russia’s position is fair : pay the money – get the gas. They are independent nations, they self should solve all their issues including economic.
    In this case the blackmailers are the Ukraine and Belarus, that wished to parasitize on Russia and tried to threaten Russian-European energy communications.

    Quote Originally Posted by zraver View Post
    trace a line from Iran to Berlin, Paris, Copenhagen, and London what country do they pass over? Now trace a line from Russia to those same cities and what country do they not pass over? hint- Chezk republic. if the US wante dto build a system to reduce Russia's nuclear strike cpaability vs europe it would place systems in the Baltic, Norway, and Poland.

    Also ask the Ukraine, Belarus, and Poland about Russia's energy blackmail scheme.
    Zraver, if we trace a line from Iran to Paris, Czech republic appears somethere in the middle of this line. Where, of course, the Iranian ballistic missile, that is prospected to intercept, will be in the highest point of its flight, about 500 km in space. Where there are no any capability and any sense to intercept this missile. By the way, Iran doesn’t have such missiles that able to reach Paris, Berlin or Copenhagen. That would be much more logically to deploy anti-missile system against Iran in Turkey or in Arabia to force down any Iranian missiles on their take-off heading while the speed is not too high. And against North Korea – in South Korea and Japan. Or it wouldn't? Why US do not do this way? The explanation of anti-missile system in Czechia as anti-Iran seems simply like excuse and covering for real intentions.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Most needed in US NAVY
    By Praxus in forum Naval Warfare
    Replies: 345
    Last Post: 18 May 08,, 01:36
  2. Iraq in Books - Review Essay
    By Shek in forum The Iranian Question
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 29 Feb 08,, 11:08
  3. Military Uses for Space
    By Ironduke in forum Science & Technology
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 03 Oct 07,, 05:14
  4. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 05 Nov 06,, 15:42
  5. Rivalry Brews in Russia's Backyard
    By Gio in forum Europe and Russia
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 05 Dec 04,, 04:20

Share this thread with friends:

Share this thread with friends:

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •