Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.

Real Men Want To Go To Moscow

by Jacob Freeze Thu Dec 20th, 2007 at 09:09:57 AM EST

In accord with the neo-conservative mantra that "real men want to go to Tehran," speculation in Congress and the press has concentrated on war with Iran as the catastrophe most likely to unfold in the last year of the Bush Presidency. But our delusional President may have bigger plans, and his meddling in Eastern Europe has brought the United States uncomfortably close to conflict with a much more dangerous opponent than Iran.

The Russians feel so threatened by the installation of anti-ballistic missiles and X-band radar in Poland and the Czech Republic that Vladimir Putin equates the current situation with the Cuban missile crisis that pushed the US and the Soviet Union to the brink of nuclear war in 1962.

"Analogous actions by the Soviet Union when it deployed rockets on Cuba provoked the Cuban missile crisis," the Russian president said after an EU-Russia summit in Portugal. "For us, technologically, the situation is very similar. On our borders such threats to our country are being created."

The highest ranking Russian general, Chief of Staff Yuri Baluyevsky, has also gone public with a doomsday scenario straight out of Dr. Strangelove:
"The firing of an anti-missile rocket from Poland could be seen by Russia's automated system as the launch of a ballistic missile, which could provoke an answering strike," Itar-Tass news agency quoted Baluyevsky as telling a news conference.

Since Russia removed its intermediate range missiles from the European theatre under the provisons of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF) signed by Reagan and Gorbachev in 1987, the "answering strike" would come in the form of intercontinental ballistic missiles, and the other continent in "intercontinental" is usually North America. (It's also worth noting that no one knows exactly how automatic the "automated system" mentioned by General Baluyevsky may be.)

Of course, Europeans couldn't really expect to sit out a nuclear exchange between the US and Russia, watching missiles fly back and forth over their heads, and Putin issued a stark warning to Europe in an interview with the London Times June 4, 2007:

"It is obvious that if part of the strategic nuclear potential of the US is located in Europe and will be threatening us, we will have to respond. This system of missile defence on one side and the absence of this system on the other ... increases the possibility of unleashing a nuclear conflict."

The commander of Russia's strategic missile forces, General Nikolai Solovtsov, made the threat a little more specific December 17 in another interview with Interfax:

"If the US shield is seen to threaten Russia's nuclear capability, "I do not exclude ... the missile defence shield sites in Poland and the Czech Republic being chosen as targets for some of our intercontinental ballistic missiles,"

In case Europeans still don't get the message, Mr. Putin is repeating it in a stronger form than interviews by threatening to withdraw from the INF and suspend the Conventional Forces in Europe Treaty (CFE), which limits Russia's deployment of tanks, aircraft and heavy conventional weapons across the continent. Most Americans never heard of the CFE, but this thing took ten years to negotiate before it was finally signed in 1992, and it's a very big deal in Germany, Hungary, and the Czech Republic, where some people still remember Russian tanks rumbling down the streets.

Mr. Putin is also pushing a few hot buttons of the Bush administration with his unexpected decision to supply Iran with 80 tons of enriched uranium. This isn't some fantasy load of "yellowcake" from Niger! It's the real thing.

Well-informed readers may wonder why the Russians are painting a picture of the US and Russia on the brink of nuclear war, aligning themselves with Iran, abrogating treaties, and in general making such a fuss about ABM installations, even though virtually every ABM test ends in total failure.

The real nightmare for the Russians isn't some Rube Goldberg ABM installation in Poland, it's the possibility of a first strike by the United States against the Russian nuclear arsenal, and according to a recent article in Foreign Affairs by Keir A. Lieber and Daryl G. Press, this nightmare is getting closer to reality all the time.

The Rise of U.S. Nuclear Primacy is full of very bad news for Russian generals and their old allies in China:

It will probably soon be possible for the United States to destroy the long-range nuclear arsenals of Russia or China with a first strike. This dramatic shift in the nuclear balance of power stems from a series of improvements in the United States' nuclear systems, the precipitous decline of Russia's arsenal, and the glacial pace of modernization of China's nuclear forces.

Lieber and Press also describe how even the suspicion of first-strike capability destabilizes the delicate balance of mutually assured destruction.

U.S. nuclear primacy could prompt other nuclear powers to adopt strategic postures, such as by giving control of nuclear weapons to lower-level commanders, that would make an unauthorized nuclear strike more likely -- thereby creating what strategic theorists call "crisis instability."

We're already seeing a similar destabilization in Putin's saber-rattling at Europe, and the conclusion of The Rise of U.S. Nuclear Primacy is even more alarming.

Is the United States intentionally pursuing nuclear primacy? Or is primacy an unintended byproduct of intra-Pentagon competition for budget share or of programs designed to counter new threats from terrorists and so-called rogue states? Motivations are always hard to pin down, but the weight of the evidence suggests that Washington is, in fact, deliberately seeking nuclear primacy.

In this context, "nuclear primacy" means the ability to destroy Russia with a first strike before the Russians can retaliate.

After the article appeared in Foreign Affairs, the Pentagon immediately dispatched one of its stooges, Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Policy, Peter C. W. Flory, to deny such a scandalous allegation against our peaceful and benevolent military-industrial complex:

Lieber and Press assert that current U.S. nuclear policy looks "like a coordinated set of programs to enhance the United States' nuclear first-strike capabilities," an erroneous inference that has already prompted harsh reactions in Russia and other countries.
But the harshest reactions from well-informed Russian sources were aimed at the Pentagon, Mr. Bush, and the pitiful Mr. Flory himself. Alexei G. Arbatov, formerly Deputy Chairman of the Duma Defense Committee of the State Duma in the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation, with responsibility for Russia's defense budget, arms control treaties, and defense industries, wrote in support of Lieber and Press:
The strategic balance between the United States and Russia is becoming less stable, and the objective, technical possibility of a first strike by the United States is increasing. At a time of crisis, this instability could lead to an accidental nuclear war. For instance, if Russia feared a U.S. first strike, Moscow might make rash moves (such as putting its forces on alert) that would provoke a U.S. attack. Lieber and Press are rightly concerned about that risk.

Mr. Arbatov continues with a discussion of recent developments in the Russian nuclear arsenal that's scarily reminiscent of General Baluyevsky's caution about an "automated" response by Russian nuclear defenses:
These forces will still be enough to serve as a minimal deterrent, but it will rely heavily on a hair-trigger alert, which is very dangerous in the age of nuclear weapons proliferation and catastrophic terrorism.

Russia's on-going concern about American first-strike capability has been severely exacerbated by plans to install the latest generation of X-band radar in the Czech Republic. In a recent article in Aviation Week & Space Technology, David A. Fulghum describes the jamming abilities of active electronically scanned array (AESA) radars:

The new radar, made of up of hundreds, perhaps thousands, of transmitter/receiver modules, can scan for targets, keep a continuous track of dozens of them, guide missiles and communicate. Perhaps most interestingly, all the power of the radar's TR modules can be focused to jam enemy radars in a narrow frequency band.

So the installation of a huge radar array in the Czech Republic radically increases the possibility of a first strike by threatening to blind Russia's early warning radar system for the very few minutes required to launch and land the latest generation of American missiles.

It's analogous to the sort of stun grenade that SWAT teams use to incapacitate hijackers for a couple of seconds while they kick in the doors.

Mr. Putin is facing a delusional President who has already launched a "pre-emptive" war based on nothing but malarkey, with an administration full of Cold War hold-overs like Dick Cheney and Elliot Abrams, and a peanut-gallery of crazy advisers like Donald Kagan and Norman Podhoretz, all of them still cherishing dreams of a New American Century. Now this gang of lunatics is installing a huge radar array on Russia's eastern border under the flimsy pretext of protecting Europe from Iranian nuclear weapons that don't exist.

Let us plant this stun grenade on your windowsill to chase away mosquitoes!

If Mr. Putin and the generals behind him are convinced now or in the near future that nothing stands between Russia and nuclear annihilation except the tender mercy of a neo-conservative cabal in Washington, it isn't hard to imagine how a very minor incident could push Russia's "hair-trigger" nuclear arsenal over the tripping point, and erase you and me as absolutely as if we had never existed.

 


Display:
European Tribune - Real Men Want To Go To Moscow

The real nightmare for the Russians isn't some Rube Goldberg ABM installation in Poland, it's the possibility of a first strike by the United States against the Russian nuclear arsenal, and according to a recent article in Foreign Affairs by Keir A. Lieber and Daryl G. Press, this nightmare is getting closer to reality all the time.

The Rise of U.S. Nuclear Primacy is full of very bad news for Russian generals and their old allies in China:

That article in Foreign Affairs was discussed here:
Let's play nukes (by kcurie on May 17th, 2007)

The imaginary (or symbolic universe) that it is coming out of Washington is: "we are really that close... that close to get a shield and then we will be able to nuke everyone we want with no retaliation".

Interesting diary and comments.

We have met the enemy, and he is us — Pogo
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Dec 20th, 2007 at 09:17:30 AM EST
So the installation of a huge radar array in the Czech Republic radically increases the possibility of a first strike by threatening to blind Russia's early warning radar system for the very few minutes required to launch and land the latest generation of American missiles.

ICBM launches are detected by early-warning infrared satellites, in high-excentricity polar orbits. The observation can't be jammed. The communication of the warning either (it's a narrow-aperture parabolic dish in Moscow probably). The only things that could be trans-horizon jammed are the tracking radars of the anti-missile system around moscow, to minimize the probability that the capital survives (near zero anyway in a real first-strike, it would be the target of a massively saturating attack).

It's impossible, even for the US, to launch a first-strike without the ground-based ICBM's taking off (submarines take longer to warn, very-low frequency comms have low-throughput, and a hunter-killer sub could be stalking them and attacking them in sync).

Therefore, the contribution of the Poland base to the first-strike ability is to provide a launch site for boost-phase interceptors (of Russian ICBM shot from e.g. Ural silos). Note that the "window of execution" is narrow, if not inexistent: although the US are trying to secure the sites today, no boost-phase ICBM interceptor will be available in the next 10 years at least (European defense industries have projects possibly closer to market, but these are low-end, focused on scud-like missiles, with the aim of making good export success in the Middle-East). By that time, Russia will be sailing an entire flotilla of new strategic submarines that the US will probably not be able to stalk.

Pierre

by Pierre on Thu Dec 20th, 2007 at 09:51:07 AM EST
From the same article by Lieber and Press:
Compounding these problems, Russia's early warning system is a mess. Neither Soviet nor Russian satellites have ever been capable of reliably detecting missiles launched from U.S. submarines. (In a recent public statement, a top Russian general described his country's early warning satellite constellation as "hopelessly outdated.") Russian commanders instead rely on ground-based radar systems to detect incoming warheads from submarine-launched missiles. But the radar network has a gaping hole in its coverage that lies to the east of the country, toward the Pacific Ocean. If U.S. submarines were to fire missiles from areas in the Pacific, Russian leaders probably would not know of the attack until the warheads detonated. Russia's radar coverage of some areas in the North Atlantic is also spotty, providing only a few minutes of warning before the impact of submarine-launched warheads.

Your assurance that a first-strike must necessarily employ land-based ICBM's is malarkey. Have you counted all the warheads on stealth bombers, submarines, and cruise missiles? Would you share that interesting number with me?

You say that

submarines take longer to warn, very-low frequency comms have low-throughput, and a hunter-killer sub could be stalking them and attacking them in sync

Did you happen to read Arbatov's discussion of the deterioration of Russia's nuclear deterrent, which I linked in my diary? It doesn't even matter, because the objections you make are beside the point. Slow communication to subs only matters in case a rapid response is required, and for a first strike launch-time can be agreed upon in advance.

(I only posted on European Tribune out of admiration for Jerome, and the rest of it is just a sad joke.)

by Jacob Freeze on Thu Dec 20th, 2007 at 10:09:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]
ICBM's are the arch-typical weapons of first-strike, even if they have the rapid-communication advantage in second-strike. Submarines are kept in reserve for the future in cold-war doctrine scenarios (using them gives away their location), as a deterrent against possible escalation by other nuclear powers (think: China). Of course, it is still possible to use them in first strike. US would fire from the pacific, they phased out the Atlantic base.

The Russians are still launching satellites regularly to maintain the coverage of their warning network. I am skeptical of the claim they couldn't spot a sub launch (the IR signature is just as big a ground launch) and inclined to believe it is whining for more toys on the part of the good general.

Cruise missiles can escape early warning satellites, but note that Russian cities and silos are too far off the coast for the range of classic tomahawk ammunitions (I only count launches from attack subs, launches from conventional bombers are too easy to spot, they are relatively slow, have low reach or they need a huge apparel of in-flight refueling, etc...).

The asymmetry  of this situation (US cities are highly vulnerable to an attack by sub cruise missiles) had the pentagon in anst for many years.

Now the B2 white elephant: remember that there are only 21 B2 in the US Air Force (like in : twenty-one), they are only stealth if they refrain from firing propelled ammo (no star pattern of cruise with 20 minutes flight time and IR+radar signature), which means no more than 21 targets can be processed in the first wave of the strike. Which makes them totally worthless, wahhahaahahaha !

Slow communication to subs only matters in case a rapid response is required, and for a first strike launch-time can be agreed upon in advance.

Well, that is exactly what I said, except it really means that the acoustically inferior Russian subs (of the present day) are ineffective as a deterrent.

Don't be mistaken: I agree that the morons in the Pentagon are masturbating themselves with dreams of nuking Russia (they've been for 30 years). It's just that they can't do it just so quickly, in any case. And if they do try, >50% of the US population will be eliminated (it may be one of their goals actually).

Pierre

by Pierre on Thu Dec 20th, 2007 at 10:29:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Without rehashing the whole article by Lieber and Press, as well as the extended discussion in a following issue of Foreign Affairs, it's worth noticing that Putin is talking about the Cuban Missile Crisis without any of the obvious motives you attribute to Russian generals looking for a bigger slice of the budget, and that Arbatov basically agrees with the assessment by Lieber and Press.

Not even the unspeakable Secretary Flory disputes the main facts about the deterioration of the Russian nuclear arsenal, especially the assertion by Lieber and Press that all nine of Russia's nuclear submarines are sometimes sitting simultaneously in port.

The erratic quality of Russian satellites opens a lot of little windows of opportunity, and their communication links are especially vulnerable to jamming.  When Putin talks about the current situation as a technological equivalent of the Cuban Missilie crisis, that's part of what he means.

(I only posted on European Tribune out of admiration for Jerome, and the rest of it is just a sad joke.)

by Jacob Freeze on Thu Dec 20th, 2007 at 10:58:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Discussing improvements in US submarine-based missiles, Lieber and Press write:
The result of these upgrades is stunning. During the last years of the Cold War, a U.S. SLBM warhead had roughly a 12 percent chance of destroying a hardened Russian ICBM silo. Of the two types of U.S. submarine-launched warheads currently deployed, one has about a 90 percent likelihood of destroying such a silo and the other has a 98 percent chance. Despite such progress, the United States continues to improve the lethality of its SLBMs. These steps are unnecessary for deterrence and strongly suggest a desire for nuclear primacy. Only such a goal would justify additional upgrades to U.S. counterforce capabilities.

The Russians have 3500 nuclear warheads, but the number of silo emplacements is in the hundreds. That number is well within the range of possible destruction by submarine launched MIRV vehicles, without relying either on land-based ICBM's or cruise missiles.

(I only posted on European Tribune out of admiration for Jerome, and the rest of it is just a sad joke.)

by Jacob Freeze on Thu Dec 20th, 2007 at 11:49:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The problem is that the same US ABM missile sites in Poland and the Czech Republic could be used to launch short-range missiles designed to cut the Russian command and control network.  This has been US strategy for DECADES, but there has been no practical way to implement it.  Close-basing near the Russian border is thought to provide the practical way to make the first-strike strategy operational.  

This leaves the Russians only with their automatic dead-hand system, but obviously they do not want to be relying solely on that.  

The Russians will have to take SOME practical counter-measure before the US has established those bases.  I do not know what it will be, and it does not sound like the Russians do either.  So the warning to the Poles and Czechs that they can expect to fry at the first sign of trouble, is meant to warn them off of this thing and slow it down.  

The Fates are kind.

by Gaianne on Thu Dec 20th, 2007 at 11:29:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Poland is still far enough from the command networks that a ballistic missile launch would have to be big and register in the early warning system. It's a bit borderline for the range of low-altitude cruise missiles, and they would have longer flight time with opportunity of detection by the Russians.

The truth is, first-strike-and-home-free will just never cut it against a country as big and industrialized as Russia, even in a deteriorated state of infrastructures. I think it is best this way, but junior just doesn't get it.

Actually there is one thing that could work, it is space-prepositionned stealth warheads (talking hundreds in LEO here). The present system of treaties forbids it, and we have no reason to believe that any of if has been prepared to this day (military launches can be accounted by spysats and comsats mostly, no need for this conspiracy theory). Of course, these things can change, but it would take a long time.

Pierre

by Pierre on Fri Dec 21st, 2007 at 04:18:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]
While a Goldeneye scenario would be... interesting, wouldn't it also tend to kinda fry your own orbital toys? I mean, a LEO detonation would send a lot of unstable isotopes and charged particles swanning around in Earths magnetic field, and those would do - ah - Bad Things to the electronics of any satellite unfortunate enough to get in their way, wouldn't they?

'Course, any scenario involving a nuclear (first) strike is plenty nasty enough to make that a minor concern, but if the point was to use it as a "get out of nuclear war free" card... Maybe not so much?

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Fri Dec 21st, 2007 at 05:06:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I was more thinking of a "MIRV on patrol" scheme. The warhead has small de-orbitation booster, a re-entry nose, and it detonates near the ground like a conventional MIRV. It's just that would be designed to remain several years in orbit, undetected, before the strike order. The "undetected" part is difficult, especially if you have a hundred. There is basically no background noise in space at that depth of field, so a radar return is unmistakable (the doppler and delay allow a ground radar to filter anything that comes from within the atmosphere, or GEO satellites. then the "ordinary" LEO are all mapped in public databases for the security of civilian missions, anything extra has to be military or alien). The warhead would have to be coated with B2-like radar-absorbent material - which has never been tested in space for any kind of extended duration, to my knowledge. Then you need some dish for communications (which makes for a fine radar mirror), and some power source (if not solar panels, then a RTG but then you give off heat). Eventually, some way of arranging the unnoticed disposal of the warhead on the ground after a decade (the orbit will decay, and you don't want it to fall on a random location).

So I think the case for the enforcement of the space demilitarization treaties is quite clear: nobody can build this up today and remain unnoticed for too long.

Pierre

by Pierre on Fri Dec 21st, 2007 at 05:26:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I really don't think the US will necessarily tell Poland exactly what missiles they will be installing on their territory, and the bases are supposed to be entirely under US control, with no Polish oversight. It makes sense for Russia to be suspicious since the Iranian excuse is transparently false, and it would also make sense for Poland to be suspicious.

Now that Tusk has accounced he will be talking to the Russians directly about this  there's a good chance the plan will never be implemented.

We have met the enemy, and he is us — Pogo

by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Dec 21st, 2007 at 06:22:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Why not just destroy the base with a couple of conventional warheads as soon as it's built?
by vladimir on Fri Dec 21st, 2007 at 08:39:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Things like mutual assistance clauses in NATO treaties ? But I think cutting the gas to Poland as soon as blue stream is online should be enough.

Pierre
by Pierre on Fri Dec 21st, 2007 at 09:15:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]
You think the Germans and French would go to war with Russia if it bombed an American missile base in Poland? I'm sceptical.
by vladimir on Fri Dec 21st, 2007 at 09:22:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]
No, the US would. Or more likely, they would "gradually retaliate" by sinking a patrol boat here, blowing an outpost there... All sorts of really, really silly things. But then bombing the sites would be silly too, when an energy blocus would make it.

Pierre
by Pierre on Fri Dec 21st, 2007 at 10:09:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Bombing the installations in Poland and the Czech Republic would be a military response similar to that of the Americans in the Balkans where, the US reasoning goes, even if NATO acts outside the framework of international law and militarily integrates an area into its fold, Russia will or can do nothing.

Well in Poland and the Czech Republic, the Russians should reason in the same manner. Even if we bomb the two installations, NATO couldn't and won't do anything. This would send a serious message to NATO that Russia is determined to protect its interests and ready to go to great lengths to do so.

by vladimir on Fri Dec 21st, 2007 at 09:54:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Leaving aside the fact that Poland has a formal strategic alliance with the US - a state of affairs that, to the best of my knowledge, did not obtain between Russia and any of the Balkan countries, there's a pretty damn big difference between intervening in an ongoing humanitarian disaster like the Yugoslav civil war. Even granting that the military and geostrategic logic would be the same, the political logic would be quite different.

Or, to put it a bit more bluntly: Poland is not a psychologically valid battleground for a war-by-proxy, because it's not some insignificant third-world backwater embroiled in civil war - it's a charter member of both NATO and the Union, which makes it a significant third-world backwater, and it's not an outright humanitarian disaster either (although a case could certainly be made that it's a human rights disaster). It's not a distinction that I particularly care for, but then again, I don't particularly care for war-by-proxy either. Or war in general, for that matter.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Fri Dec 21st, 2007 at 09:04:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Just yesterday Poland was a member of the Warsaw Pact. And today it's part of NATO. Given the absence of a Russian military threat in Europe, America's military buildup on Russia's borders can and is likely interpreted as a preparation for war.

While I don't particularly care for war-by-proxy or war in general either, I think that the Russian military perceives America's muscle flexing on its borders as preparation for war. After all... real men want to go to Moscow, right?

Given that we've established that the US military is managed by generals who have little or no civilian governance (i.e. Wesley Clark, ...) and that American diplomats are prone to making terrible "misjudgments" (i.e. Madeleine Albright, ...) which lead to armed conflict, the likelihood of war breaking out on ex-Soviet territory between Russian and US (backed) forces some time in the near future seems more than real. In the different scenarios envisaged, this seems most likely in Abkhazia, Transdnestr or Crimea.

So, while the US is surrounding Russia, preparing for war, you seem to suggest that a Russian military reaction in Poland should be ruled out... because Poland is a member of NATO? What difference does that make given the situation? I think that the Russians are seriously considering a strike against the US military, either directly - as would be the case in Poland and the Czech Republic, or indirectly, as would be the case in Kosovo, the Bosnian Serb Republic or Iran/Iraq. Why? Because Karpov used to say that the best defense was always in good offence.

by vladimir on Sat Dec 22nd, 2007 at 09:20:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]
vladimir:
So, while the US is surrounding Russia, preparing for war, you seem to suggest that a Russian military reaction in Poland should be ruled out... because Poland is a member of NATO?
So, you think Russia should adopt Bush's pre-emptive strike doctrine?

I'm still hoping that Tusk will be a saner Polish PM and this will come to nothing. At least he's talking to both Merkel and Putin, something his predecessor was incapable of doing.

We have met the enemy, and he is us — Pogo

by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sat Dec 22nd, 2007 at 09:48:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Between you and me Migeru, I think this is all insane. Nukes in silos, nukes on wings, nukes in space, nukes on subs, nukes, nukes, nukes.
Unfortunately, nobody cares what I think :(
My analysis pointed to what a growing proportion of Russian military leaders most probably think.
by vladimir on Sat Dec 22nd, 2007 at 09:58:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Had Jacob not deleted his previous diary I could point you to a comment where I quoted a number of ET "salon" posts tracking the German government's position on the missile shield last Spring. Basically, European governments make noises to appease their (rightly) worried populace, and then there's a NATO summit or an EU summit and nobody voices any objections at the top government level. The same thing happened on the CIA secret flights.

We have met the enemy, and he is us — Pogo
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sat Dec 22nd, 2007 at 10:05:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]
What is it that holds Europe's leading politicians hostage to Pentagon interests?
by vladimir on Sat Dec 22nd, 2007 at 10:10:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I have no idea.

In countries that are already NATO members, opposition to NATO is considered "unserious". In countries which are not NATO members, opposition to NATO is sold on a "tradition of neutrality" because even there all "serious" people are Atlanticist.

We have met the enemy, and he is us — Pogo

by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sat Dec 22nd, 2007 at 10:20:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Individually they are all too dependent on US investment.  Collectively the EU doesn't amount to a whole can of beans in terms of international relations.  Hopefully the reform treaty will make some contribution  to changing this situation for he better.

Index of Frank's Diaries
by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot male dotty communists) on Sat Dec 22nd, 2007 at 10:20:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The investment is actually going the other way. The US is a "predator economy" consuming much more than it produces. Just look at the US current account deficit.
by vladimir on Sat Dec 22nd, 2007 at 11:28:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Damned if I know. But I can guess:

  1. Gratitude. This is very much the official line. We should all be thankful to the US for having preserved democracy (a.k.a. capitalist democracy) in the face of Nazism and Communism (nevermind the fact that it was the USSR who broke the back of Germany during the War). While I think many of the people who toe this line know perfectly well that it's bullshit, I'm sure that there are a few committed ideologues that truly believe it.

  2. Cultural affinity. The US is our chief supplier of cultural products. Try leaving a TV on in Europe for an evening. I'll bet you dollars to doughnuts (or the other way around, if you prefer hard currency :-P) that you'll be watching at least one American movie. Hell, I'm about as committed to a European future as you get, and I'm still almost half-way American.

  3. The US is the chief exponent of the neo-liberalism (a.k.a. unrestricted gangster capitalism) that many 'serious' - to use Migeru's term - European opinion-shapers are so beholden to. It is not entirely unlikely that much of our upper class simply find that their spiritual home is on the other side of the Pond - after all, it's a deal more fun to be rich in a neo-lib society.

  4. Cold-war tradition.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.
by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Sun Dec 23rd, 2007 at 09:05:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]
You mention the soft reasons, which are fine.
There's also a hard reason which is probably as important if not more - and that's BIG US contracts for military hardware - with or without kickbacks to the key politicians. If Merkel is weighing friction with Russia against a couple of thousand jobs in her constituency, she's likely to choose the latter.
by vladimir on Sun Dec 23rd, 2007 at 01:31:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I deliberately did not include kickbacks because I don't believe that they're sufficiently common in (Northwestern) European political culture to seriously influence decisions. As for the economic dependency that seems absurd on the face of it - the rest of the world - including Europe - is subsidising the US to the tune of several billion (trillion?) € a year. No, I think it has to be psychological, because in terms of hard incentives, it makes no sense at all.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Sun Dec 23rd, 2007 at 01:47:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I wouldn't call it economic dependency. Economic sweetener seems more appropriate. While indeed the US economy is subsidized to the tune of $1.3 trillion per year (roughly twice the Pentagon's annual budget), it's important to note that the lion's share of capital flowing into the US economy is private. So whereas Merkel can't say "I'm not going to support US deficits" in order to keep the money in Germany, she can say "I do want the Pentagon to sign a € 2 billion contract with Siemens".
Also, if you take a look at how the negotiations unfolded (see Migeru's post), Merkel was initially against deployment of the sites in Poland & CzRep. only to be swayed in favor later, after negotiations... or arm twisting. You wouldn't expect that from someone who believed in the Atlantic partnership.
To conclude, I think that large contracts are definitely in the play.
by vladimir on Sun Dec 23rd, 2007 at 03:05:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Of course Merkel could deploy measures to keep private German money out of the US. But I think you've identified another reason for our little list: Dogmatic free-tradeism. There is a decided unwillingness to use restrictions in free trade and free flow of capital for political ends (at least as long as we're talking about restricting trade for white, English-speaking people). That puts Europe at a disadvantage, because it negates the objective economic advantage we have over the US.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Sun Dec 23rd, 2007 at 10:18:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Well, after seeing both Aznar and Blair make big bucks on the US lecture circuit I'm not sure there isn't a lot of cold interested calculation and selling out for personal gain on the part of right-wing European leaders, of late. And Schröder got a job at Gazprom, where he may soon be joined by Putin.

We have met the enemy, and he is us — Pogo
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Dec 25th, 2007 at 02:55:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Retrieved from Google's cache...
The country that should be most concerned about this, as a neighbour or both Poland and the Czech Republic and the largest EU member state is Germany. However, the Polish at least seem to be as about as wary of Germany as they are of Russia. So, what has Germany done?

Back in March this year we there was a lot of debate in Germany. Take this from March 12:

Fran:

Reuters: Germany's Schroeder slams U.S. missile shield plans
DRESDEN, Germany (Reuters) - U.S. plans to build a high-tech missile shield in Poland and the Czech Republic are dangerous and absurd, former German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder said on Sunday.

"The missile defense system planned by the United States and which is to be installed in eastern Europe is politically extremely dangerous," Schroeder said in a speech in Dresden.

"It is viewed, rightly, in Russia, and not only there, as an attempt to establish an absurd encirclement policy, a policy which is everything but in the interest of Europe," he said.

On March 14, Merkel was talking tough...
Fran:
IHT: Merkel sharpens tone on U.S. missile shield
BERLIN: Chancellor Angela Merkel, sharpening her government's opposition to Poland's decision to accept part of a U.S. missile shield on its territory, said Tuesday that the issue should be submitted to NATO and not decided on a bilateral basis with Washington.

Merkel is to meet in Hannover on Thursday with President Vladimir Putin of Russia, whose aides have threatened to withdraw from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty if deployment so close to Russia's borders proceeds. On Friday, representing the European Union presidency, she will travel to Poland where she will discuss the plan with Prime Minister Jaroslaw Kaczynski.

"We, and I, will say that in Poland we would prefer a solution within NATO and also an open discussion with Russia," she told ZDF public television.

Nary a week later...
Fran:

German Concern Over Missile Shield Plans: Merkel Urges US to Consult Allies - International - SPIEGEL ONLINE - News
German Chancellor Angela Merkel is urging the US government to engage in a broader discussion about the missile defense shield it plans to erect in Poland and the Czech Republic to protect it from enemy missiles.

"We should always make sure that we discuss everything in a spirit of trust to avoid rifts," Merkel said in a speech to a conference on trans-Atlantic economic cooperation in Berlin. "No one can master the new challenges on their own." She said that applied to the European Union as well as the United States. The German chancellor was in Poland on Friday and Saturday to press its leaders to back a broader discussion on the missile shield within NATO.

Merkel's remarks follow strong comments from German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier who said it was important not to let the US project spark a new arms race in Europe nearly two decades after the end of the Cold War.

Was Germany coming to its senses? While the Social Democrats made noises about how dangerous this was, Merkel went to the US to make amends and say that she remained the best of pals with Condi Rice. So much for tough talk.
SPIEGEL alert 'Europe Doesn't Need New Missiles' (The World From Berlin, March 20 2007)
Plans by the United States to build a missile defense shield in Eastern Europe has led to sharp criticism from some quarters in Germany. While the chairman of the Social Democrats says Europe doesn't need new missiles, Chancellor Angela Merkel and her foreign minister would like to see NATO get more involved.

The German foreign minister, Frank-Walter Steinmeier, visited his US counterpart Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice on Monday and sought to play down differences between Berlin and Washington on the issue of a US plan to build a missile defense system in Europe.

He described the US need to protect itself as "legitimate" and said that Germany respected this. "It is not a disruption of American-German relations, none whatsoever," he said after meeting with Rice.

(seen here on ET on March 21, 2007)
More NATO involvement? Okay, what does that mean? Well, after NATO's Jan de hoop scheffer said that yet another missile shield would be needed to protect South-East Europe, Solana pitched in to plead for poodlehood.
afew:
EUobserver.com | Solana calls for EU-level debate on missile shield
EUOBSERVER / BRUSSELS - EU states should hold a joint debate on US plans to install a missile shield in Poland and the Czech Republic, the EU's top man on foreign policy, Javier Solana, told MEPs in Brussels on Thursday (29 March), in a lively meeting that opened the question of EU treaty limitations on national sovereignty in defence.
By this time, the Germans government was fully on board! Apparently North Korea has missiles than can hit Europe (clearly with Russian permission).
Fran:
German Defense Minister in Favor of US Missile Shield in Europe | Germany | Deutsche Welle | 12.04.2007
German Defense Minister Franz Josef Jung on Thursday expressed support for the US plan to build a missile shield in central Europe.

The latest developments with Iran's nuclear program reinforce the case for deploying a missile shield to protect Europe from attacks, Jung told Reuters in an interview Thursday.

The United States wants to build a radar station in the Czech Republic and a missile battery in Poland as a shield against possible nuclear attacks from what it calls "rogue states," namely Iran and North Korea.

And then the long awaited NATO meeting happened...
Fran:
EU states raise no objection to US missile plan at NATO forum - EUobserver.com
EUOBSERVER / BRUSSELS - US plans to build a shield against intercontinental missiles in Poland and the Czech Republic received tacit approval from the 26 NATO member countries at a meeting on Thursday (19 April), despite opposition to the plan inside the EU and from Russia.

"There were no critical comments on the US system," NATO spokesman James Appathurai said after the first meeting of high-level NATO political representatives on the US plan, held at NATO headquarters just a few kilometres outside the EU capital, Brussels.

Shortly thereafter Putin said he would pull out of the CFE treaty. What would you have suggested that the Germany and the EU do differently?
Followed by this other comment
Oh, the danger has been appreciated in Europe, just not by "serious" people like Merkel, Solana, Jan de Joop Scheffer...
I think Germany should approach it from the other side, and try to buy off Poland and the Czech Republic. If they are looking for construction, let Germany build something in the same depressed areas, and so on.
Didn't I just show you that Germany's government pretended to be worried for a while but sought NATO cover as soon as they could? This reminds me of when the CIA Prison/Flight scandal broke in <gasp> November 2005. For a week Europe's governments made appropriate noises to satisfy the populace, and then Condi Rice was forced to come to Europe on a lightning trip, doring which Europe's leaders demanded, in the strongest possible terms, that Condi please help them deal with the European public. Ahem. It's been two years since anyone has done anything, despite the evidence.

As for buying off Poland and the Czech Republic... that seems hardly necessary
Fran:

US president starts Europe tour amid Czech protests - EUobserver.com
Two thousand anti-missile shield protestors picketed government buildings in Prague on Monday (4 June) night as US president George Bush landed in the Czech republic to start a week long European tour, with Mr Bush set to chide Russia over democratic standards in a major speech on Tuesday.

Czech demonstrators held up signs saying "Bush number one terrorist" in what has become a familiar sight on his European visits since the 2003 invasion of Iraq, with 1,500 Czech police - including counter-terrorist and sniper units - all-but shutting down central Prague in anticipation of larger protests today.

Opinion polls show two-thirds of Czechs do not want the US to build bits of a new missile shield in the country, amid fears of worsening relations with Russia and becoming a target for anti-US terrorist groups. The shield - to be operational by 2012 - will also see US missiles in Poland, despite similar fears in Polish society.

Assuming 1) Germany actually doesn't want the shield; and 2) the Czech government listens to its people; there should be no need for bribes. But what bribes can Germany offer that can outweigh giving the Czech President access to the US lecture circuit as a Climate Change expert? I mean, come on!

On Germany bribing the Poles, what did you smoke for breakfast today?

The only solution is to vote the serious peopleidiots out of office.
Fran:

Central European Socialists Sign Anti-Missile Shield Declaration | Europe | Deutsche Welle | 14.09.2007
The socialist leaders of six central European nations signed a declaration on Friday, Sept. 14, condemning US plans to base its missile defense shield on European soil.

In what will be a massive blow to the United States' plans to base its missile defense shield in Central Europe, left-wing leaders from the Czech Republic, Poland, Slovenia and Slovakia plus Austrian Chancellor Alfred Gusenbauer and Germany's Social Democratic Party (SPD) chief Kurt Beck condemned the plan and issued a joint declaration stating their opposition in no uncertain terms.

"We are concerned about the decision to deploy the system and are at one with the large majority of our populations in rejecting it," read the declaration.

Sorry I lost the links to the original ET threads where these blockquotes were taken from - TribExt doesn't work on the google cache.

We have met the enemy, and he is us — Pogo
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sat Dec 22nd, 2007 at 10:18:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]
thank you!
by vladimir on Sat Dec 22nd, 2007 at 11:19:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]
A Russia-US confrontation in Poland will not be a limited war. The German-Polish border is less than two hundred km from Berlin, for Chthulu's sake! Every single European country is going to view an attack on Poland - however justified - as a declaration of war on the Union proper. As you said yourself, Poland was a Warsaw Pact state not so very long ago. Even leaving aside the fact that attacking Poland would be a stab right next to the heart of Europe, consider the implications for the Baltic states or Slovakia. Even Finland might get scared enough to mobilise!

When Argentina tried to touch the Falklands - the most worthless piece of real estate this side of the Siberian Tundra - the British sent a carrier task force to unleash all the daemons of Hell on them. Try, for a moment, to imagine the reaction from London, Berlin and Paris to an attack on a major member of both the Union and NATO. They'd go ballistic so fast that the sonic boom would blow out windows in the Kremlin. (And let's not even consider that messianic madman in the White House.)

The US can drop bombs on some ex-Yugoslav country, and nobody gives a damn. The US can assault Vietraq and get little more than strongly worded letters of disapproval from most European capitals (nevermind the 'new Europe' cheerleaders!). Israel can annex the West Bank and turn Gaza into an open-air prison, and nobody turns a hair. Hell, Russia can even commit slow-motion genocide in Chechnya and the most any civilised country does about it is hold a conference once in a while. But touch white people who speak a semi-decent English, and you open all the gates of Hell. It's not fair and I don't like it one bit but that's how it is.

No, if Russia wants to flex its military muscle without risking a major war, it'll be something down in the Caucasian rim. Georgia or Azerbajan or somewhere like that, which is deep enough inside the Union's sphere of interest to get the point across, but not close enough to home to get a NATO CTF dispatched to the Black Sea. We'll probably see a bunch of shiny new MiGs in the Iranian airforce too.

Vladimir Putin, unlike some other current leaders of major powers I could name, is not certifiably insane. Competent Tjekists don't raise the stakes unless they're damn sure they'll win the game. And in a large-scale confrontation between Russia and the Union and/or NATO, neither side would win.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Sun Dec 23rd, 2007 at 08:52:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I really don't think the US will necessarily tell Poland exactly what missiles they will be installing  

There will be a list given to the Polish government.  The US may even announce a list publicly.  

Both will be false.  

The Fates are kind.

by Gaianne on Fri Dec 21st, 2007 at 02:18:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The Russians have strategic missile submarines. Are they so bad that everyone count on them all being sunk within minutes by trailing Los Angeles's and Virginias?

And are the Russians still mad enough to believe we would ever launch a first strike on them, even if we could?

Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.

by Starvid on Tue Dec 25th, 2007 at 03:40:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]
If you had bothered to read my comments, if you could actually find them among 13 comments devoted to a worthless discussion of how comment ratings are handled by the software on EuroTrib, you might have noticed this:

Not even the unspeakable Secretary Flory disputes the main facts about the deterioration of the Russian nuclear arsenal, especially the assertion by Lieber and Press that all nine of Russia's nuclear submarines are sometimes sitting simultaneously in port.

About the possibility of the Russians being "mad enough to believe we would ever launch a first strike on them"...

Remember the Russians are looking at a country that drops four times as many bombs on Afghanistan every day as we drop on Iraq, and we have already dropped more bombs on Iraq than we dropped on Germany in WWII, and most of those bombs we drop on Afghanistan fall on defenseless villagers who have nothing whatsoever to do with the Taliban or al Qaeda.

Just how "mad" do you think the Russians would have to be to think Bush/Cheney would do anything if they thought they could get away with it, and getting away with it is exactly what the second half of my diary and the article by Lieber and Press are all about.

 

(I only posted on European Tribune out of admiration for Jerome, and the rest of it is just a sad joke.)

by Jacob Freeze on Tue Dec 25th, 2007 at 01:07:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Someone is a bit touchy!

Relax mate.

Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.

by Starvid on Wed Dec 26th, 2007 at 11:54:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]
It doesn't seem as if there is a lot of military logic to the installation of anti-ballistic missiles and X-band radar in Poland and the Czech Republic, but there is a POLITICAL logic.  The military/industrial complex needs serious enemies if it is to justify its costly bg ticket defence expenditure items.  

Gorbachev once asked "now that we have taken your enemy away from you, what will America do?"  The answer is they found wars to wage against drugs, terrorism, Afghanistan and Iraq, but none of these are sufficient to keep the really heavy end of the military industrial complex  funded.  Putin is doing them a big favour by allowing his cage to be rattled.  Soon America will have a really big enemy again.  Phew! We were almost looking at serious defense expenditure cutbacks here lads.  Just as well Putin came through for us.

Index of Frank's Diaries

by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot male dotty communists) on Thu Dec 20th, 2007 at 10:03:18 AM EST
The military logic of radar installations in the Czech Republic is discussed extensively in my diary, and if you aren't going to bother to respond to that discussion, or criticise it in any way, why bother to load up my diary with irrelevant comments?

(I only posted on European Tribune out of admiration for Jerome, and the rest of it is just a sad joke.)
by Jacob Freeze on Thu Dec 20th, 2007 at 10:22:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Talk about being rude, you're a master! Why people bother writing serious comments in your diaries beats me, they get nothing but abuse in return.

Quit this hectoring manner of communicating here, please.

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Thu Dec 20th, 2007 at 10:33:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]
PS why is it that went I rate your comments nothing happens to your comments score?

Index of Frank's Diaries
by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot male dotty communists) on Thu Dec 20th, 2007 at 10:06:30 AM EST
A comment needs two ratings before it gets a score. Before that it has none/0 (no ratings) or none/1 (1 rating).

I have no idea what the reason behind this is.

Sweden's finest (and perhaps only) collaborative, leftist e-newspaper Synapze.se

by A swedish kind of death on Thu Dec 20th, 2007 at 10:12:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The first rating doesn't get displayed (you see (none, 1) which means, being interpreted: no display, one rating). This has to do with Scoop calculating mojo only from the second rating on to avoid isolated troll ratings having too much influence. Unfortunately, it can't be modified.

However, if you click on the (none, 1) you will be able to see that your 4 has indeed been registered.

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Thu Dec 20th, 2007 at 10:22:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I was so hoping my diary would turn into a forum about ratings on EuroTrib!

But what the heck! Let's all be rude, each in his or her own way, and see how much fun we have!

(I only posted on European Tribune out of admiration for Jerome, and the rest of it is just a sad joke.)

by Jacob Freeze on Thu Dec 20th, 2007 at 10:24:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]
In what way is it rude, Jacob? Frank is a fairly recent user who had a question he put -- after writing a substantial comment. It's not rude to give him a fair response, it's courteous.

The thread isn't being hijacked. <end>

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Thu Dec 20th, 2007 at 10:29:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Thanks guys, I'm still figuring out how this site works, and tend to give 4s to substantial comments even if I don't agree with them.  When I saw nothing happening I thought my rating privileges might have been suspended for some reason.

Jacob - I did read your diary and concluded that the military argument for the installation of anti-ballistic missiles and X-band radar in Poland and the Czech Republic was not convincingly demonstrated.  However I am not an expert on military matters and so I will leave that discussion to others.  

I did however think that the very public nature of the spat and the way it was being escalated in the political sphere might have a political logic to it, and it was on that aspect I chose to comment.

I'm afraid your privilege of being able to publish a diary here and take part in the discussion does not extend to having the right to control the direction the discussion might take.  You are privileged that others seek to read and respond at all.  Next time the might not bother.

I do hope you are not employed as a disarmament negotiator as your negotiation skills might need some updating.

Index of Frank's Diaries

by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot male dotty communists) on Thu Dec 20th, 2007 at 11:12:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Maybe I should have prefaced this diary with a few common sense observations.

Putin isn't stupid! He has every reason to maintain the status quo with the US and Europe, since Russia is getting rich with oil prices and his party is running the whole show right down to the ground.

Now he's upsetting the whole apple cart of treaties, and ratcheting up nuclear rhetoric with a dangerously unstable lame duck President in the US.

Why?

Putin isn't stupid!

He follows the ABM tests just as carefully as anyone else who takes a little interest in the subject, and it doesn't take much interest or intelligence to notice that they just don't work. The latest failure is described in a link in the diary.

 So it doesn't make sense to believe that the ABM's in Poland are generating so much static. The other option is the AESA X-band radar in the Czech Republic, with it's vastly enhanced ability to jam Russian installations.

Radar jamming has been progressing rapidly for the last twenty years, even in trivial applications like jamming police radar for dedicated traffic speeders, and that's what Putin means when he talks about the technological equivalent of the Cuban Missile Crisis.

Putin isn't stupid! Arbatov isn't stupid! Neither one of those guys has any conceivable reason to rattle the nerves of the generals who control the Russian nuclear arsenal, not to mention lower level commanders who have more operational control than their counterparts in the US.

(I only posted on European Tribune out of admiration for Jerome, and the rest of it is just a sad joke.)

by Jacob Freeze on Thu Dec 20th, 2007 at 11:34:59 AM EST
My thoughts.

While there is a vocal spat going on between the US and Russia, I think the actual chances of military conflict between the two are about zilch at the moment, while it seems the US Administration is still keen on bombing Iran.  

So far as Doomsday scenarios go, I don't think Russia is promoting this rhetoric but reacting to US policy by making obvious comparisons.  It's the US who started this.  I think if Russia were installing missile shields on the Mexican border, we'd be rightly pissed off.  And that Russia has every right to respond to military build up along its borders with parallel measures of their own.  One would think that their pointing out this obvious fact would serve to deter US plans, but instead, people are interpreting it as some kind of provocation.  It is a rational response, not a provocation.  

I mean, can anyone explain what is the purpose of US missile defenses in Poland and the Czech Republic?  People afraid those Soviet tanks are going to roll back into town?  Well, it is not 1968.  It is 2007, and Russia has shown no imperialist tendencies for years.  They are too busy trying to keep their own federation from breaking apart.  More importantly, they are no longer beholden to a political ideology which mandates political evangelism (Communism).  No.  It's the US who is running around the planet invading countries with their arsenal of democracy, trying to convert the world at gunpoint with no thought of the consequences of our actions.  So Russia pipes up and points out the consequences, and the onus is on them?  BS.  

Well-informed readers may wonder why the Russians are painting a picture of the US and Russia on the brink of nuclear war, aligning themselves with Iran, abrogating treaties, and in general making such a fuss about ABM installations, even though virtually every ABM test ends in total failure.

Well informed readers hopefully see this situation in less simplistic and cliched terms.

I don't know what the solution here is, but since we know Bush is a madman and Putin is no push-over, one would hope that the er, uhm, CZECH and POLISH folks would realize how stupid this idea is, that the EU might intervene (I think that might go a long way towards mitigating Russian "sabre-rattling" over there) and that people could get their acts together and agree that relying on the US to protect you from unlikely threats is insane.  I mean, don't bitch about out defense budget and then turn to us for ... defense!  Insane!

Meanwhile, I hope people like us can remain calm and not buy into this neo-Cold War hysteria.  Let's not forget why it was called a "Cold" war.   And let's try to make sensible and informed arguments without relying on rhetoric like "hair-trigger," "nightmare," and "doomsday."  This isn't a Hollywood movie.  This is foreign policy.

"Pretending that you already know the answer when you don't is not actually very helpful." ~Migeru.

by poemless on Thu Dec 20th, 2007 at 11:53:51 AM EST
Well informed readers hopefully see this situation in less simplistic and cliched terms.

When you talk about my diary as "simplistic and cliched," do you have something in mind like this:

Well, it is not 1968.

or this:
It's the US who started this.

or this:
one would hope that the er, uhm, CZECH and POLISH folks would realize how stupid this idea is

or this:
This isn't a Hollywood movie.  This is foreign policy.

Thanks for providing a little hall of fame of simplistic remarks and cliche's, and for being dense enough to call attention to it by insulting me!

(I only posted on European Tribune out of admiration for Jerome, and the rest of it is just a sad joke.)

by Jacob Freeze on Thu Dec 20th, 2007 at 12:08:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]
You know, a lot of people have taken the time to carefully read your post and to thoughtfully comment.  Why do you treat them so poorly?  Can't we freely exchange ideas without personal attacks?

My comments we not about you, but the situation you write about.  

"Pretending that you already know the answer when you don't is not actually very helpful." ~Migeru.

by poemless on Thu Dec 20th, 2007 at 12:11:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Check it out! You blockquote a section of my diary, and my description of a very salient element of the current situation between Washington and Moscow, and directly underneath you write your "clever" little comment. And now you claim it wasn't really about me, so you can whine about having the same terms returned to sender.

Pathetic!

Well-informed readers may wonder why the Russians are painting a picture of the US and Russia on the brink of nuclear war, aligning themselves with Iran, abrogating treaties, and in general making such a fuss about ABM installations, even though virtually every ABM test ends in total failure.

"Well informed readers hopefully see this situation in less simplistic and cliched terms."



(I only posted on European Tribune out of admiration for Jerome, and the rest of it is just a sad joke.)
by Jacob Freeze on Thu Dec 20th, 2007 at 12:32:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I remain hopeful that at some point you can return to my comments and the constructive comments of others with a bit less defensiveness and a bit more patience and gain something practical from this experience.   Perhaps there should be a Warning! sign when you sign up to this site that lets you know that this is a forum for genuine debate and ad hominem attacks are not likely to be tolerated because they get in the way of informative discussion.

Again, it is not you that I've insulted.  It is the unhelpful way this subject is framed everywhere in the media.  I'd say your post was much more fair than a lot of coverage.  But it is very easy -for anyone- to slip into the old ways of talking about US-Russia relations, relying more on emotive rhetoric than reason and facts.  It is a simplistic approach, and I do hope well informed readers can see that.  Because, frankly, it is not you Jacob, I'm concerned about.  It's what you are writing about.  

"Pretending that you already know the answer when you don't is not actually very helpful." ~Migeru.

by poemless on Thu Dec 20th, 2007 at 01:08:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]
You don't deserve a single comment on your threads. Your constant insults call for troll ratings.
by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Thu Dec 20th, 2007 at 12:23:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Jacob, did you delete your Boom! Headshot! diary and everyone's comments to it?

We have met the enemy, and he is us — Pogo
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Dec 20th, 2007 at 12:28:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I deleted that thing when I noticed it had 80 comments and no recommends.

At that time I though maybe a little more credit should be given for stimulating discussion and a little less for rehashing les idées reçues.

This diary is probably destined for the same oblivion, unless something radically improves.

(I only posted on European Tribune out of admiration for Jerome, and the rest of it is just a sad joke.)

by Jacob Freeze on Thu Dec 20th, 2007 at 01:11:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]
It so happens that your previous diary was devoid of content but did spawn an interesting comment thread. This one has interesting content but you're doing a good job of derailing any discussion.

If you delete another one of your diaries we might be forced to take away your ability to edit your own stories once posted.

We have met the enemy, and he is us — Pogo

by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Dec 20th, 2007 at 01:17:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Once a diary is published and spawns a discussion I would consider that it is "owned" by the community who have contributed to that discussion, and not just by the diary author.  I would be quite annoyed if I had spent a lot of time writing a considered comment only to find it had been deleted.  

Index of Frank's Diaries
by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot male dotty communists) on Thu Dec 20th, 2007 at 02:15:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]
What's more the diary and its comments really disappear. We can't conjure them back up from the bowels of the software.
by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Thu Dec 20th, 2007 at 02:29:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Deleting diaries in a fit of pique is pretty bad form since it involves deleting other people's contributions. Don't bother posting diaries if that's going to be your attitude.
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Thu Dec 20th, 2007 at 01:19:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]
If it is any consolation to you Jacob, what I consider to have been my best diary got the least comments and recommends as you put it.  Some topics are simply a minority taste and don't attract much of a readership or debate - often because others don't feel qualified to comment.  

I suspect there are very few military strategists here and so few would feel qualified to engage with you on your central thesis.  We are here to learn, perhaps to add a minor or supplementary comment, not as experts to peer review a scholarly work.

Writing a comment and checking out the reaction to it is the best way of testing out a half formed thought or theory.  If we were experts, we probably wouldn't be here in the first place!

Index of Frank's Diaries

by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot male dotty communists) on Thu Dec 20th, 2007 at 01:26:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]
An interesting Diary.

Bill Engdahl is good on this subject.

I have no doubt the US strategy has been the consistent pursuit of "Full Spectrum Dominance" and in particular a "First Strike" capability.

God forbid that is comes to that, but I never thought that I would be glad that Russia maintains a credible nuclear arsenal.

And by the way, Jacob, just so you know, that was not intended as a criticism.

You don't have to defend your corner against "attack" on ET, and you should neither mistake constructive criticism for attack nor dismiss out of hand comments made with less "authority" than yours.

"The future is already here -- it's just not very evenly distributed" William Gibson

by ChrisCook (cojockathotmaildotcom) on Thu Dec 20th, 2007 at 12:50:41 PM EST
My comment below seems to have disappeared so I have retrieved it from my browser memory and am reposting it here.  It was written in response to the following comment by Jacob:

Golly, Frank, why would I call irrelevant "comments" and dismissing the whole substance of my diary without a trace of analysis rude?

You simply assert there's no military utility in the radar emplacements in the Czech Republic, and launch into trivia about ratings on the site.

Golly, Frank, where's the disrespect in that?

----

 "The whole substance of your diary" as I understand it is that the U.S. is building a first-strike military capability that will allow it to launch a nuclear attack on Russia without fear of effective retaliation.  I did not comment on that thesis much less dismiss it.  In fact I probably agree with that thesis even though Pierre did dispute your assessment that this was possible in the near term.

There may also however be political factors behind the decision to pursue the installation of anti-ballistic missiles and X-band radar in Poland and the Czech Republic.  The US has a long history of pursuing extremely expensive but largely ineffective weapons systems (remember Star wars?) which can keep the military industrial complex well funded for many years.

They do, however, depend on the US administration being able to create a public fear of an arch enemy ready and willing and able to attack the US.  My fear was that the PUBLIC sabre rattling documented in your piece would help to create such a climate and thus make it easier to secure funding for such projects.

The other political factor - which I didn't mention - is that by placing such installations in Eastern Europe the US is retaining control of the security agenda in Europe and underlining the ineffectiveness of the EU as an independent force in world politics.  

The last thing the neo-cons want is the EU and Russia joining forces and become a real challenge to US hegemony, and thus anything which keeps them divided and the tension high has to be a good thing.

Thus quite apart from the military utility of the installations - which I will leave to you and Pierre and other military experts to debate - I suggest there are also political reasons why the US would want to have a major footprint in the region.

So far from blathering, being rude, disrespectful, stupid, or lacking in "common sense" I was simply introducing another line of argument which I might have expanded on had others shown an interest.

The resurgence in Russian nationalism has a lot of very serious implications for those of us living in Europe and it is important that we understand its causes.  Many thanks for presenting us with some of the military  reasons behind Putin's recent behaviour.  We have to deal with the political consequences in Kosovo and elsewhere.

Index of Frank's Diaries

by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot male dotty communists) on Thu Dec 20th, 2007 at 01:55:01 PM EST
Frank, when a comment receives at least two ratings and the average score is below 1.0, it is automatically hidden, which also hides any replies to it (though you can retrieve your comment from your own recent comments list). Trusted users can see hidden comments, unless they have set their user preferences accordingly. Anyone can become a trusted user after enough of their comments have received high enough ratings by the community.

Thanks for re-posting.

We have met the enemy, and he is us — Pogo

by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Dec 20th, 2007 at 02:03:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Thank you Jacob, Frank, Chris, Poemless, Afew, Pierre and all the rest who posted on this diary. I had a fantastic time reading it all. Jacob probably never intended his diary to be so funny... but hey, experiments often surprise. What a laugh. I think I'm gonna start again from the top.
by vladimir on Thu Dec 20th, 2007 at 02:12:24 PM EST
Guys - my comment written as a top level comment - has disappeared again.  Are we being subjected to a troll attack?

Index of Frank's Diaries
by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot male dotty communists) on Thu Dec 20th, 2007 at 02:29:28 PM EST
Space helmets on!

I can see your comment above here, if that's the one you mean.

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Thu Dec 20th, 2007 at 02:32:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]
It hasn't disappeared, it has been given a '4' score and it is sorted by scoop above all unrated top-level comments. So it's not at the bottom of the page, where you expect to find it.

We have met the enemy, and he is us — Pogo
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Dec 20th, 2007 at 02:34:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]
This diary is a jewel. You need to put it in the ET Diary Hall of Fame.
by vladimir on Thu Dec 20th, 2007 at 02:52:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Or set your comment sorting as "older first", which gives stability to the thread - quite useful.

Un roi sans divertissement est un homme plein de misères
by linca (antonin POINT lucas AROBASE gmail.com) on Thu Dec 20th, 2007 at 02:58:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]
In fact it's Ignore Ratings you need to set to stop Scoop sorting the thread by ratings.

If Frank or anyone else wants to do this, go to Settings in your User menu. At the top choose Comment Preferences.

There you can choose Nested, for example, that makes it easy to see what comments reply to which. Specify a number up to which you want this (I have 200, for example). If the thread gets longer (and unwieldy), the display switches to the second choice you indicate with a + sign. (I have Dynamic Threaded, meaning nested headers I can click on to open the comments).

Below these options you have View (I don't know why one would not leave it on default ie Mixed), then Sort. There you can choose Ignore Ratings if you wish. To the right you can opt for Oldest First (oldest comments at the top) or the contrary.

I won't go into the rest for now, this is really not on-topic...

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Thu Dec 20th, 2007 at 03:11:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Thanks guys.  I seem to have inadvertently hijacked this thread again!  It didn't help that my PC froze and I had to reboot just as I posted the "troll attack" post! (Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get me).

I'm sorry if I seem to be asking a lot of stupid questions - this is my first time on a blog like this and some of the functionality surprised me - I hadn't realised comments were sorted by rating and this explains some puzzling moving about of stuff I had noticed before.  No doubt its all in the user guidelines somewhere, but being a man I take the easy way out and just ask someone! Your patience and courteousness is appreciated.

Index of Frank's Diaries

by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot male dotty communists) on Thu Dec 20th, 2007 at 05:01:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]
most embedded articles and news were discussed here quite a time ago, and almost everything possible was already said (and said here as well).

anyway, Jacob thanks for a diary....

by FarEasterner on Fri Dec 21st, 2007 at 07:29:57 AM EST
I have troll rated your comment because I find your sig line insulting for the members of a community I respect and appreciate a lot. I will keep troll-rating you until you change it.

"Dieu se rit des hommes qui se plaignent des conséquences alors qu'ils en chérissent les causes" Jacques-Bénigne Bossuet
by Melanchthon on Fri Dec 21st, 2007 at 02:56:44 PM EST
Jacob, I´m practicing concern trolling because it´s a shame that you put effort into a diary-full of interesting information, and then wasted it by losing your temper.  Again.  I hate wasted talent!

The argument has a false premise in that it makes two people and some expert into the word of god, instead of what they are.  Their tone is sensationalist and IMHO, that´s where it fails to convince.  

You can write any diary and expect to learn a lot, without defending it to the letter, so open yourself and be a little patient.

Our knowledge has surpassed our wisdom. -Charu Saxena.

by metavision on Sat Dec 22nd, 2007 at 11:38:30 AM EST
For the first time as a FP I deleted comments. Jakob posted the same video over 12 times with the titel BOOM! HEADSHOT¨! I also found the video offensive, though I could not understand every word.

If you want to see what I deleted you can do so here

by Fran on Tue Dec 25th, 2007 at 01:49:15 PM EST
I also changed your classification to spammer, so that you can not repost the video again.
by Fran on Tue Dec 25th, 2007 at 01:57:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]
With my agreement. Jacob splattered "BOOM! HEADSHOT!" Youtube embeds everywhere he didn't like other people's comments. Trolling and vandalism.
by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Tue Dec 25th, 2007 at 02:23:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]


Display:
Go to: [ European Tribune Homepage : Top of page : Top of comments ]