Nice of Russia to allow that exception in the 1987 treaty for the thousands on intermediate range cruise missiles fired off from US Naval ships in the Indian Ocean over the last 25 years. Russia can have all the missiles and nuclear bombs they want. We trust the people of Russia to make wise decisions. The psychopaths invariably elected by the Amerikan people are another story entirely.
1
January 2, 2015
Editorially this is the most important issue on the planet –
atomic weapons in the array of arenas that is expressed & backsliding.
For whatever reason this is the best way to start to new year by reality check
I congratulate the New York Times for setting the agenda right , smart and just awesome.
We got to believe we can, and will do better – and this is that Russia, EU & America. to read the pdf Congressional Research attachment
Complete journalistic support with international solidarity can resolve this crucible as transparent milestones with accounting….
Jja Manhattan, N.Y.
Editorially this is the most important issue on the planet –
atomic weapons in the array of arenas that is expressed & backsliding.
For whatever reason this is the best way to start to new year by reality check
I congratulate the New York Times for setting the agenda right , smart and just awesome.
We got to believe we can, and will do better – and this is that Russia, EU & America. to read the pdf Congressional Research attachment
Complete journalistic support with international solidarity can resolve this crucible as transparent milestones with accounting….
Jja Manhattan, N.Y.
1
The statement that NATO deploys anti-ballistic missiles from newly accepted NATO members is Russian propaganda and misinformation. In fact in 2018 a few SM 3 anti-ballistic missile systems will be deployed in Poland and aimed at the Middle East, where there actually is a threat from Iran and from non-state actors.
A few SM 3's cannot defend against the Russian strategic nuclear deterrent. Russia is well aware of this fact and nevertheless publishes false propaganda.
Russia faces the same threat from Iran and from the Middle East as does NATO.
NATO may have an improved guided gravity bomb capability in Europe by the mid 2020's, that is, 10 years from now. Whether such weapons are deployed in England or in Poland really makes no difference.
Russia, on the other hand, has mobile howitzers that are nuclear capable. Tactical nuclear weapons are not covered by treaties. Russia declines to disclose how many tactical nuclear weapons it has deployed in Europe. Tactical nuclear weapons create a dirty battlefield where the troops using the weapons create fallout that may kill them as well as all other human beings within miles of the target for many years. Tactical nuclear weapons are self-destructive.
Intermediate range nuclear missiles launch on a few minutes notice and are dangerous, hair-trigger weapons that may create war by accident. There is reason to believe that Russia tested and deployed such weapons.
Preventing war by accident is in everyone's interest.
A few SM 3's cannot defend against the Russian strategic nuclear deterrent. Russia is well aware of this fact and nevertheless publishes false propaganda.
Russia faces the same threat from Iran and from the Middle East as does NATO.
NATO may have an improved guided gravity bomb capability in Europe by the mid 2020's, that is, 10 years from now. Whether such weapons are deployed in England or in Poland really makes no difference.
Russia, on the other hand, has mobile howitzers that are nuclear capable. Tactical nuclear weapons are not covered by treaties. Russia declines to disclose how many tactical nuclear weapons it has deployed in Europe. Tactical nuclear weapons create a dirty battlefield where the troops using the weapons create fallout that may kill them as well as all other human beings within miles of the target for many years. Tactical nuclear weapons are self-destructive.
Intermediate range nuclear missiles launch on a few minutes notice and are dangerous, hair-trigger weapons that may create war by accident. There is reason to believe that Russia tested and deployed such weapons.
Preventing war by accident is in everyone's interest.
1
January 2, 2015
Editorial assumption towards pressure by USA allies in this the most important issue on the planet – the atomic weapons in the array of arenas that as expressed – is backsliding. For whatever reason this is the best way to start to new year by reality check – I congratulate the New York Times for getting the agenda right , smart and just awesome. We got to believe we can, and will do better – and this is more that Russia and EU or America – this reporting with attached pdf of the Congressional Research says one thing – we must get to work – we must demand a complete journalistic support by international solidarity to commence asap – I just need to be able to sleep better – only as we resolve this - what I a crucible on earth and the revelations are exactly the determinates for grownups to act now, and with full transparent milestones – by next year I pray we can thanks the world leaders for moving the atomic football to chains on hell and with accounting….
We must as well follow all the world press to measure and calibrate the angels from the devils – and who will be dealt the measure for documented journalism – with this top agenda for realty –and then we can as well monitor the criminals in thugs disturbing the masses in failed nations – we all know the list – as least Cuba in moving right.
Jja Manhattan, N.Y.
Editorial assumption towards pressure by USA allies in this the most important issue on the planet – the atomic weapons in the array of arenas that as expressed – is backsliding. For whatever reason this is the best way to start to new year by reality check – I congratulate the New York Times for getting the agenda right , smart and just awesome. We got to believe we can, and will do better – and this is more that Russia and EU or America – this reporting with attached pdf of the Congressional Research says one thing – we must get to work – we must demand a complete journalistic support by international solidarity to commence asap – I just need to be able to sleep better – only as we resolve this - what I a crucible on earth and the revelations are exactly the determinates for grownups to act now, and with full transparent milestones – by next year I pray we can thanks the world leaders for moving the atomic football to chains on hell and with accounting….
We must as well follow all the world press to measure and calibrate the angels from the devils – and who will be dealt the measure for documented journalism – with this top agenda for realty –and then we can as well monitor the criminals in thugs disturbing the masses in failed nations – we all know the list – as least Cuba in moving right.
Jja Manhattan, N.Y.
1
"What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander." Apparently the New York Times editorial board thinks that Russia is a "bogeyman", a wild and dangerous animal, because they are rebuilding their economy and military in the face of banking and corporate directed Western aggression going back over 20 years with NATO and EU expansion into their neighboring countries and the latest outrage of the overthrow of the elected government in Kiev and rigged elections to install another puppet regime for the "New World Order". It seems the Times thinks it is okay for the United States to "project its power" by invading and occupying sovereign nations like Iraq and Afghanistan and spending billions of borrowed money on "modernizing" nuclear weapons but Russia cannot do anything to protect her national borders or interests without being labeled an "aggressor" and a "bully" and the Russian government and people demonized with libel and slander through endless propaganda in American and European corporate owned news media. "The bigger they are, the harder they fall." This country is headed for an economic and military fall of epic proportions and bringing it all on ourselves by electing corrupt and treacherous politicians who have brought America to the verge of financial and economic ruin. When the day of reckoning arrives for the USA not one nation in the world is going to "lift a finger" to try and help us. Decades of aggressive war and arrogance will have left us friendless.
9
@Szafran in Warsaw:
The moderators shut down the open mike about Putin the other evening just as you and I found each other in a thread. So our conversation ended before it hardly had begun.
Your initial remark about how Stalin invading Poland before Hitler turned on him feels from the Polish point of view blew me away. Left me speechless in fact. In my own inimitable style I wrote just anything to keep the conversation alive because your kindness and desire to communicate came across to me so clearly.
By the time you followed up with Stalin murdering the post-war Polish government, the thread was closed to further comment and I couldn't write you a response.
I have zero familiarity with what the world looks like from where you are standing on it, and I would like to find out more. If you have the time, I would appreciate your sending me a personal message on facebook so we can talk a little. I want to get more of a feel for how you see the post-Cold-War Cold War from there. Thank you!
The moderators shut down the open mike about Putin the other evening just as you and I found each other in a thread. So our conversation ended before it hardly had begun.
Your initial remark about how Stalin invading Poland before Hitler turned on him feels from the Polish point of view blew me away. Left me speechless in fact. In my own inimitable style I wrote just anything to keep the conversation alive because your kindness and desire to communicate came across to me so clearly.
By the time you followed up with Stalin murdering the post-war Polish government, the thread was closed to further comment and I couldn't write you a response.
I have zero familiarity with what the world looks like from where you are standing on it, and I would like to find out more. If you have the time, I would appreciate your sending me a personal message on facebook so we can talk a little. I want to get more of a feel for how you see the post-Cold-War Cold War from there. Thank you!
How dou you know that Putin is determined to reconstitute the Soviet Union?Did He ever make any announcement of that kind?
7
Actions speak louder than words
Actions speak louder than words.
1. With regard to the offending cruise missile, a single missile was tested, not deployed.
2 The testing may well have been directed at other countries and not the U.S. The U.S. engaged in comparable activity designed to deter Iran, much to the concern of Russia.
3. With respect to Russia's conventional forces, we were told how formidable they had become at the time of the Crimean takeover.. They could not have deteriorated much since then.
4. I'm not sure, but there may be agreements unratified by the Senate which gave rise to a Putin "tantrum." But that's a wild guess.
5. We all well know the imperfections of nuclear intelligence. That makes me a little skeptical of any "facts" with regard to Russia's cruise missiles.
These are all reasons to exercise restraint.
2 The testing may well have been directed at other countries and not the U.S. The U.S. engaged in comparable activity designed to deter Iran, much to the concern of Russia.
3. With respect to Russia's conventional forces, we were told how formidable they had become at the time of the Crimean takeover.. They could not have deteriorated much since then.
4. I'm not sure, but there may be agreements unratified by the Senate which gave rise to a Putin "tantrum." But that's a wild guess.
5. We all well know the imperfections of nuclear intelligence. That makes me a little skeptical of any "facts" with regard to Russia's cruise missiles.
These are all reasons to exercise restraint.
5
Jeff you strike me as a conservative, probably working in law enforcement. your post always seem odd and over critical of the President. Please write some thing of substance and stop taking shots at the President,
4
We still have the capacity to eliminate the human race on this planet. The Russians have the same capacity. This can be said of no other country on earth.
America is ready, today, to launch over 1,500 strategic nuclear weapons. So to is Russia. Either then could destroy every city on the planet, every major military base, every viable sea port, every naval task force, every nuclear power plant and most if not all the major hydroelectric dams on the planet. If they work together to take out each others capacity and population then they can easily take the destruction down to every major rail line and highway and a large percentage of the best cropland.
Of course global warming would no longer be an issue. Nuclear winter yes, as well as EMP death of our remaining technology. But not global warming.
This is what we have left in our combined arsenals after four decades of nuclear arms treaties.
Our problem isn't backsliding it is the total lack of traction we have always faced.
Which cannot be placed at Putin's doorstep. No this is completely the fault of crazy old men like John McCain who still do not understand that they are talking on camera. That their words matter and that they are the reason why the rest of the world sees no difference between a crazy Russian with nuclear weapons and a crazy American with the same.
America is ready, today, to launch over 1,500 strategic nuclear weapons. So to is Russia. Either then could destroy every city on the planet, every major military base, every viable sea port, every naval task force, every nuclear power plant and most if not all the major hydroelectric dams on the planet. If they work together to take out each others capacity and population then they can easily take the destruction down to every major rail line and highway and a large percentage of the best cropland.
Of course global warming would no longer be an issue. Nuclear winter yes, as well as EMP death of our remaining technology. But not global warming.
This is what we have left in our combined arsenals after four decades of nuclear arms treaties.
Our problem isn't backsliding it is the total lack of traction we have always faced.
Which cannot be placed at Putin's doorstep. No this is completely the fault of crazy old men like John McCain who still do not understand that they are talking on camera. That their words matter and that they are the reason why the rest of the world sees no difference between a crazy Russian with nuclear weapons and a crazy American with the same.
6
It will be interesting who will be our next U.S. President because this will be the focus of the next White House Administration.
If we can't negotiate with other countries in the future over their nuclear ambitions we won't be able to if nuclear weapons come from space.
It's all about who is in power and everyone agrees that they don't want to be the one holding the shorter stick if dangled from a country that is not in control of their own nuclear weapons. Like a rogue nation or terrorist group that will use these weapons such as nuclear, chemical and biological.
Even the United States is not all powerful. No other country should be either.
If we can't negotiate with other countries in the future over their nuclear ambitions we won't be able to if nuclear weapons come from space.
It's all about who is in power and everyone agrees that they don't want to be the one holding the shorter stick if dangled from a country that is not in control of their own nuclear weapons. Like a rogue nation or terrorist group that will use these weapons such as nuclear, chemical and biological.
Even the United States is not all powerful. No other country should be either.
1
What Russia, then the Soviet Union, had to accept and humour while in rapid decline is no longer tenable nor possible.Russia is no longer in decline and is back as a mega force in the international arena that will never accept American universal over lordship; which come think of it is best for all three concerned parties: the USA, Russia and the WORLD.
The USA led WEST started the whole thing by admitting Poland into NATO, hardly a peace seeking move despite blatant and rational Russian protestations ; that was the declaration of Cold War 2 to which Russia could/cannot but respond.
The USA led WEST started the whole thing by admitting Poland into NATO, hardly a peace seeking move despite blatant and rational Russian protestations ; that was the declaration of Cold War 2 to which Russia could/cannot but respond.
5
Well as usual such agreements only stick when it is beneficial to both parties. Now Russia sees it as not beneficial and is cheating, it is not "vital" to me but is important.
What we are seeing is a reaction from the Russians of multiple aggressive actions from the West towards them. First NATO are expending more and more to the East, this is in violation of promises made to the Russians. Second, a coup d'état backed by the West in Ukraine in order for NATO to expend there too. The anti-missile system installed at Russia's borders on false pretenses but aimed at Russia. A pre-emptive nuclear strike law passed by the US. And now we wonder why the Russians are reacting. All these facts were ignored by this Editorial Board...Why? The US and its allies need to know that there will be reactions to their actions.
7
Has the Times forgotten that the US abrogated ("unsigned") the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty of 1972? The US has hardly been an honorable player in terms of treaties with Russia in general, in fact.
As it stands now, US aggression in Ukraine has created a new Cold War - and the US is now investing billions in upgrading and modernizing our nuclear arsenal, even as we encroach all around Russia via NATO.
While the Times has made it clear through its hysterical series of daily anti-Putin, Russia-bashing screeds that history, economic interests, and plain facts are not important to its writers and editors, we would have to agree that lambasting Russia for not honoring a treaty with the US is certainly a case of throwing stones in the proverbial glass house.
And with another Daily Screed, Times' credibility takes another hit ....
As it stands now, US aggression in Ukraine has created a new Cold War - and the US is now investing billions in upgrading and modernizing our nuclear arsenal, even as we encroach all around Russia via NATO.
While the Times has made it clear through its hysterical series of daily anti-Putin, Russia-bashing screeds that history, economic interests, and plain facts are not important to its writers and editors, we would have to agree that lambasting Russia for not honoring a treaty with the US is certainly a case of throwing stones in the proverbial glass house.
And with another Daily Screed, Times' credibility takes another hit ....
8
"US aggression in Ukraine"? Just which foreign power has its troops there? I have seen no evidence of US forces; the same cannot be said of Russian 'volunteers'.
I would love to hear your definition of aggression which includes US actions yet excludes Russian.
I would love to hear your definition of aggression which includes US actions yet excludes Russian.
1
Just how much do you think we can afford on more weapons, or another cold war, as popular as those would be with the military industrial establishment? We're already footing the gigantic bill of a massive and unconstitutional security establishment and the worlds by-far largest military. The idea that we must control the world, and pay for it, needs to come to a screeching halt, and our dwindling resources go to keeping our nation from declining further than we already are. History is replete with hubris-laden world conquerors who spent themselves into disaster trying to rule it all.
8
How refreshing to have an American president who's respected around the world by friend and for alike!
Does anyone believe Obama is going to do anything but kick the can down the road to the next president, same as he's doing with Iran and Syria and every other crisis he's fumbled? Putin certainly doesn't.
Maybe he can push his reset button again. That worked so well last time.
Does anyone believe Obama is going to do anything but kick the can down the road to the next president, same as he's doing with Iran and Syria and every other crisis he's fumbled? Putin certainly doesn't.
Maybe he can push his reset button again. That worked so well last time.
Let's hope the US is developing a satellite nuclear weapon delivery system in response. Passivity is not an option when dealing with aggressive enemies.
3
You might consider what happens when satellite orbits decay, and what it would cost to maintain them and correct their orbits as that inevitable event occurs. Not to mention the responses of other nuke-armed nations. Hanging nukes over all our heads is not the cure for what ails us, no.
4
Mr. Noble I take it you believe that Anglo/American capitalism is not now nor has ever been an aggressive enemy to Russia or any other 'right' thinking country - except of course those that deserved it as the realization of God's will
1
Mr. Noble I take it you believe that Anglo/American capitalism is not now nor has ever been an aggressive enemy to Russia or any other 'right' thinking country - except of course those that deserved it as the realization of God's will
2
Its just amazing, the degree to which the Times has chosen to manipulate perception, rather than inform, in the US-Russia conflict:
1) The US started the crisis in Ukraine by backing a coup that overthrew a duly elected government, backing an essentially fascist regime of Western-aligned oligatchs along with ultranationalists and neo-NAZIS.
2) The US did this purely outnof a desire to exploit Ukraine economically while depriving Russia of critical security and economic accesses.
3) The US did this with no provocation from Russia.
4) The US did this after more than 20 years of violating our agreement to not militarily encroach on Russia.
5) The US is making a vast investment in upgrading our nuclear arsenal, making any non-proliferation claims on our part hypocritical and best and lacking any credibility.
6) The US was the first to break treaties, by backing out of the ABM Treaty of 1972.
7) The US has engaged in imperialist military aggression for decades, Russia has not made a real incursion out of its borders since Afghanistan (the hyperbolic "invasion" of Ukraine is a propagandistic farce that even the Times should not stoop to)
Youll never see this context reported in any of the Times' endless (and increasingly, shrill) screeds against Putin and Russia. Youll never read the truth about which nation is now the aggressor, and which the victim. Youll never see it pointedly clear, the economic motivations behind US aggression in Ukraine, or the broader history there.
1) The US started the crisis in Ukraine by backing a coup that overthrew a duly elected government, backing an essentially fascist regime of Western-aligned oligatchs along with ultranationalists and neo-NAZIS.
2) The US did this purely outnof a desire to exploit Ukraine economically while depriving Russia of critical security and economic accesses.
3) The US did this with no provocation from Russia.
4) The US did this after more than 20 years of violating our agreement to not militarily encroach on Russia.
5) The US is making a vast investment in upgrading our nuclear arsenal, making any non-proliferation claims on our part hypocritical and best and lacking any credibility.
6) The US was the first to break treaties, by backing out of the ABM Treaty of 1972.
7) The US has engaged in imperialist military aggression for decades, Russia has not made a real incursion out of its borders since Afghanistan (the hyperbolic "invasion" of Ukraine is a propagandistic farce that even the Times should not stoop to)
Youll never see this context reported in any of the Times' endless (and increasingly, shrill) screeds against Putin and Russia. Youll never read the truth about which nation is now the aggressor, and which the victim. Youll never see it pointedly clear, the economic motivations behind US aggression in Ukraine, or the broader history there.
14
@CAF
The stretches that the Putin apologists engage in are more amazing.
It was not a coup, it was a popular uprising backed by a supermajority of the Rada and the US didn't start any of that. Since the US didn't start it, you points 2-3 don't hold up. Your point four presumably refers to the ostensible agreement not to expand NATO and there was no such agreement.
The US didn't break the ABM treaty, it withdrew from it pursuant to the terms of the treaty. The widsom of that is another question but there was no treaty violation.
There is nothing hyperbolic about the Russian invasion of Ukraine and the references to US actions are tu quoque.
The stretches that the Putin apologists engage in are more amazing.
It was not a coup, it was a popular uprising backed by a supermajority of the Rada and the US didn't start any of that. Since the US didn't start it, you points 2-3 don't hold up. Your point four presumably refers to the ostensible agreement not to expand NATO and there was no such agreement.
The US didn't break the ABM treaty, it withdrew from it pursuant to the terms of the treaty. The widsom of that is another question but there was no treaty violation.
There is nothing hyperbolic about the Russian invasion of Ukraine and the references to US actions are tu quoque.
2
Putin (and given his popularity, Russians) seem driven by a completely different set of priorities, rooted in a distinct notion of reality that we cannot begin to comprehend. The shrinking nuisance value, their public emasculation (latest by falling Ruble) is viscerally felt by Putin and Russians. If Russians are not feared and respected, they feel humiliated. Actions follow. It is therefore logical for them to do everything in their power to create stir up trouble border states; to show their power, and highlight the ineffectual western alliance (NATO).
Putin knows that brazen treaty violations will alarm the west into negotiating with him on his terms; because he knows we will not really attack him militarily. To further provoke, he will attack a small state (I predict Latvia) in order to save ethnic Russians from further humiliations (and they indeed are being humiliated in the Baltic states).
Crying and raising alarm is not the option we should choose. We should devote our intelligence to out-crazying him until he is completely rattled. Otherwise we begin to act like the parent who gives in to a child at a supermarket intent on making a total nuisance of himself/herself.
Kalidan
Putin knows that brazen treaty violations will alarm the west into negotiating with him on his terms; because he knows we will not really attack him militarily. To further provoke, he will attack a small state (I predict Latvia) in order to save ethnic Russians from further humiliations (and they indeed are being humiliated in the Baltic states).
Crying and raising alarm is not the option we should choose. We should devote our intelligence to out-crazying him until he is completely rattled. Otherwise we begin to act like the parent who gives in to a child at a supermarket intent on making a total nuisance of himself/herself.
Kalidan
The editorial board's recommendation is really a non-recommendation. "Continue pursuing a diplomatic solution"? That's what the administration is already doing and obviously not tenable over the long term. The board says that "Russia needs to know that defiance will come at a cost," but it merely offers "economic punishment" (unilateral sanctions? because we've seen how helpful multilateral sanctions have been with the Ukraine situation) and "deployment of new defenses against cruise missiles" (which would basically be acquiescing to further Russian missile development in violation of the INF). It seems that the Russians are trying to call the US bluff on the treaty, and the NYT wants to fold.
"Russia resents the fact that China, India and Pakistan are building their missile arsenals without treaty constraints..."
Add Israel to the list, a country that has never publicly acknowledged its nuclear capability.
Take the pressure off Ukraine, the Baltic states and Poland, and you might see a very different posture from the Russians vis a vis nuclear weapons. Quite simply, they don't want Nato encroaching on what has historically been their buffer zone. That's how simple this issue is.
Add Israel to the list, a country that has never publicly acknowledged its nuclear capability.
Take the pressure off Ukraine, the Baltic states and Poland, and you might see a very different posture from the Russians vis a vis nuclear weapons. Quite simply, they don't want Nato encroaching on what has historically been their buffer zone. That's how simple this issue is.
11
Those historical buffer states should have the right of self-determination. They all wanted to join NATO. In a related matter, consider South Ossetia, and describe please what it is buffering Russia against.
20 years after the West declared the end to Cold War, Putin proves that it never ended for the KGB-corrupt bureaucracy-anti-western propaganda - monopoly-oil
based neo-soviet system. Wake up to the reality. Hopefully Congress have being doing so. Remember president Reagan. Kremlin will heed you only if you talk from the position of strength.
based neo-soviet system. Wake up to the reality. Hopefully Congress have being doing so. Remember president Reagan. Kremlin will heed you only if you talk from the position of strength.
2
And what, dear Editorial Board, red line will be Obama drawing this time?
What makes you so sure that he will stick by his "red line" and actually do something?
Barack Obama, through his feckless foreign policy has made the US and the free world the targets of any aggressive, ethically challenged tyrant because of his moral cowardice which he bills to the world as "serious thought".
Isn't it time that you, the Editorial Board of the NY Times, start looking at the real world instead of rosy fiction that Obama and his apostles peddle on a daily basis?
What makes you so sure that he will stick by his "red line" and actually do something?
Barack Obama, through his feckless foreign policy has made the US and the free world the targets of any aggressive, ethically challenged tyrant because of his moral cowardice which he bills to the world as "serious thought".
Isn't it time that you, the Editorial Board of the NY Times, start looking at the real world instead of rosy fiction that Obama and his apostles peddle on a daily basis?
2
The escalation of tensions with Russia and its ally China by the US national security state marks a significant turning point in world history. This crisis was the result of the subversion and overthrow of the duly elected government in Ukraine and its replacement with a fascist junta. The elements that CIA turned to are those fascist elements that collaborated with the Nazis.
In essence US imperialism has created the conditions for another world war that this time will reduce Europe to a permanent radio-active wasteland and the peripheral states to a new stone age.
The fact of the matter is that the US is incapable of defeating Russia militarily which is why it has turned instead to economic warfare that risks triggering a hot war with Russia. Trying to collapse the Rubble and destroy the Russian economy is an act of war that Russia has an obligation to respond to. The instigators of the crisis they cry foul and try to portray this as an act of aggression on Russia's part.
The role of the mass media in all of this is exactly the same as it was with regard to the war of aggression waged against Iraq based upon well proven lies. The responsibility to report fairly and accurately has been replaced with a willingness to kowtow to pressure from the national security state to merely accept as truth the myriad lies and distortion of facts that it is now putting forward regarding Russia.
The fact that this puts a risk the lives of 300 million Americans seems not to matter.
In essence US imperialism has created the conditions for another world war that this time will reduce Europe to a permanent radio-active wasteland and the peripheral states to a new stone age.
The fact of the matter is that the US is incapable of defeating Russia militarily which is why it has turned instead to economic warfare that risks triggering a hot war with Russia. Trying to collapse the Rubble and destroy the Russian economy is an act of war that Russia has an obligation to respond to. The instigators of the crisis they cry foul and try to portray this as an act of aggression on Russia's part.
The role of the mass media in all of this is exactly the same as it was with regard to the war of aggression waged against Iraq based upon well proven lies. The responsibility to report fairly and accurately has been replaced with a willingness to kowtow to pressure from the national security state to merely accept as truth the myriad lies and distortion of facts that it is now putting forward regarding Russia.
The fact that this puts a risk the lives of 300 million Americans seems not to matter.
15
There is no basis for the claim that the CIA overthrew Yanukovich and it certainly wasn't a coup. Yanukovich reversed positions on an agreement with the EU. When that brought out protests, he eventually initiated the use of deadly force which lead to a popular uprising backed, ultimately, by a supermajority of the Rada. The current government is one installed by presidential and parliamentary elections and is neither fascist nor a junta.
The idea that sanctions will risk a "hot" war with Russia or that 320 million Americans are at risk is pure hysterics. Further, sanctions themselves are not an act of war.
The idea that sanctions will risk a "hot" war with Russia or that 320 million Americans are at risk is pure hysterics. Further, sanctions themselves are not an act of war.
Analogies with Hitler & appeasement are wrong for today no one would survive a nuclear war between the US & Russia and therefore there can be no doubt that Russia cannot be attacked militarily. So the US & Russia should both get off their high horses and sit down to negotiate. Diplomacy is not a dirty word. Like Cuba & the US. A stalemate between Russia & the US would actually be a good thing.
Russia and the West could cooperate to make Ukraine a viable, neutral country. Instead of playing the sanctions game and a kind of beggar-thy-neighbor Russia and the West should see what is in their common interest: no war, oil & gas exports, a thriving economy and no more interference in domestic affairs. The new Cold War which threatens to become hot is a threat to mankind. Putin may not be a nice guy, he may even be a thug but is he worse than the leader of China or Saudi Arabia a darling of the US? The US constantly intervenes illegally in the rest of the world (drones, economic sanctions, pressures...). As far as Russia is concerned, we citizens of the world have a stake in preventing war. Cooperation over Ukraine and not causing the bankruptcy of Russia should be major preoccupations. Pushing the Russian strongman into a corner is a terrifying prospect for us all. On Russia Obama should do a Cuba, this is of global importance. Or a Saudi Arabia. And let the Russians decide what they do with their régime. They might choose to become more democratic in the future.
Russia and the West could cooperate to make Ukraine a viable, neutral country. Instead of playing the sanctions game and a kind of beggar-thy-neighbor Russia and the West should see what is in their common interest: no war, oil & gas exports, a thriving economy and no more interference in domestic affairs. The new Cold War which threatens to become hot is a threat to mankind. Putin may not be a nice guy, he may even be a thug but is he worse than the leader of China or Saudi Arabia a darling of the US? The US constantly intervenes illegally in the rest of the world (drones, economic sanctions, pressures...). As far as Russia is concerned, we citizens of the world have a stake in preventing war. Cooperation over Ukraine and not causing the bankruptcy of Russia should be major preoccupations. Pushing the Russian strongman into a corner is a terrifying prospect for us all. On Russia Obama should do a Cuba, this is of global importance. Or a Saudi Arabia. And let the Russians decide what they do with their régime. They might choose to become more democratic in the future.
1
Except that Ukraine does not want to be made a neutral state. That's the root of the problem from Putin's point of view. The notion that a few big powers should carve up the rest of the world to suit their immediate interests has created misery for more than two hundred years. It's time to give it up.
I appreciated the reminder from WmR that nuclear treaties are part of a larger context of agreements. Expanding NATO into eastern Europe benefits only Lockheed Martin and other arms dealers. I have been reading reports on the humanitarian catastrophe in eastern Ukraine. Could we shift our level of discourse? Could we shift our attention from the grandeur of rhetoric of the powers and principalities and think more pragmatically about how to get a workable ceasefire? And then about how to get some help to the isolated groups of people who are living in basements in Donbass? To the hundreds of thousands displaced by our confused intentions and Russia's covert ones? Sometimes governments don't seem to do much good at all.
1
One of the casualties of American foreign policy of the last decade or more has been the demise of UN Treaties. After starting an invasive, unnecessary war and after a bald record of torture and rendition -- all treaty violations -- can we now insist that other nations keep their agreements? Moral authority has that weight.
However, we still have diplomatic and economic pressures to apply. Oil and the ruble are way down. Russia is feeling the pinch. What's next?
However, we still have diplomatic and economic pressures to apply. Oil and the ruble are way down. Russia is feeling the pinch. What's next?
1
The pool of Russia's foreign exchange reserves being drained away by sanctions, declining oil prices and currency flight is also the pool that Mr. Putin relies on to fund his military build-up. Although we are only now learning about its dimensions, it is clear that Mr. Putin has been upgrading his military posture (both tactical and strategic) for several years now.
Moreover, if the current crisis does not sap Mr. Putin's $500 billion pool of cash, he will not be forced to stop his offensive policies toward nations on Russia's borders. Surely CIA analysts have an estimate of the annual cost of the build-up -- say, $50 billion annually -- so they have a pretty good idea of when sanctions will take a bite out of Russia's missile program. That will come long after its domestic economy has been damaged and the man on the street is suffering.
The lesson for policy makers is that the West should maintain pressure with sanctions regardless of the tactical adjustments that Mr. Putin makes in Ukraine. Tactical issues are only the tip of the iceberg. They reveal Mr. Putin's immediate plans, but his capital investments reveal his longer-range objectives. Until that investment is stopped, we must presume that his aggressive intentions are unchanged.
Moreover, if the current crisis does not sap Mr. Putin's $500 billion pool of cash, he will not be forced to stop his offensive policies toward nations on Russia's borders. Surely CIA analysts have an estimate of the annual cost of the build-up -- say, $50 billion annually -- so they have a pretty good idea of when sanctions will take a bite out of Russia's missile program. That will come long after its domestic economy has been damaged and the man on the street is suffering.
The lesson for policy makers is that the West should maintain pressure with sanctions regardless of the tactical adjustments that Mr. Putin makes in Ukraine. Tactical issues are only the tip of the iceberg. They reveal Mr. Putin's immediate plans, but his capital investments reveal his longer-range objectives. Until that investment is stopped, we must presume that his aggressive intentions are unchanged.
8
We should not presume anything. Listen to what they say instead of what we think they might be thinking, or what we assume are their long term objectives. As a psychologist and former intelligence officer, it is my firm opinion that there is no such thing as negotiation while maintaining pressure of threats and imposing sanctions. Neotiate responsibly, with mutual respect, as Putin has requested, and try to see the situation from their side.
Im sure there sre few people that want more nukes in the world, or an increase in tensions that could cause their use. however, I would like to know the possible, practical consequences of letting Russias moves go unanswered. We cannot afford even a modest nuclear exchange give the terrible consequences to life, the environment and climate.
1
And perhaps just as a little matter of building confidence, Obama has ordered an upgrade and modernization of our nuclear arsenal, something not mentioned here.
3
Russia can be compared to a small bully truculent child holding a gun and demanding his due when it wasn't earned. But in fact russia is a symptom of economic irrationality needing guns to prop up its justification for existing the way it does. But russia is not alone, Iran, Pakistan, China are included in this den of irrational behavior. Just because you have bigger guns, more power and the willingness to kill your own people does not make you world class or rational. Reviewing the history of. Russia, I am not sure given their extreme xenophobia, and perhaps justified, that any agreement with them is workable in the long term. The only thing that stopped Russia was the inability to keep up with the west for lack of money. I do not think offering olive branches with gold leaf would make a difference. The ideologies are diametrically opposed to any substantial compromise. The west needs to protect itself and wait the fall of the new Csarist bear. Russia will self destruct and implode from within before it explodes from without. The west must use whatever means to get information to the russian masses and counteract the Putinesque spewed reality.
2
The actual problem is that nations with nuclear weapons have not by now dismantled all of their nuclear weapons as mandated by the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. The United States and Russia are delinquent in fulfilling this mandate. After all, we have begun the year 2015 and the world has many other existential problems that should instead be our main focus.
1
As a Russian i can tell you that nobody wants to "rebuild" Soviet Union in here. All that is going on- is just normal cooperation within the region. And building NATO's war bases by the Russian borders- that is what causes the tension. BTW, Ukraine has never been of American interest until the shale gas was discovered in the region. So now it will spend a lot of money on new Kiev power just to keep killing its own citizens just to get to that region. And more than that they are making us aggressors by mass media.
28
Any nation - whether on Russia's borders or not - has the right to choose its alliances, economic policy and form of government. After being invaded, colonized, dismembered and subjected to the Russian-exported communist genocide for a half-century, Eastern European nations are naturally looking towards a nation block that has brought democracy, peace, stability, prosperity and the rule of law to the continent. That this is seen as "a threat" to Russia says more about the leadership in Moscow than about the actions of those countries.
3
I'm afraid the view is rather different from outside Russia. You can blame this on "mass media" if you like, but I trust the plural if imperfect media of Europe and the Untied States more than the ultra-nationalistic, largely state-owned or state-influenced media of Russia, the one that's convinced you that "all that is going on is just normal cooperation within the region."
Bad regimes speak in euphemisms. Take it from an American late of "Operation Iraqi Freedom."
Bad regimes speak in euphemisms. Take it from an American late of "Operation Iraqi Freedom."
3
As someone who has lived in Russia, we should be listening to what they say instead of assuming what Putin's intentions and motivations are. We are being misled by our own government and their mainstream media lackeys through propaganda and disinformation. This is pure stupidity, bordering on insanity.
8
reconstitute the soviet union?
I think you have to come up with some kind of evidence to back that assertion -
You do glance at the key issue - military spending - Russia's missile industry is an enormous patronage system that goes back deep into the heart of its scientific and military communities - all those generals and physicists, all those rocket production facilities, all those guaranteed contracts for heavy lifter engines -
Those people are Putin's core constituency, and their factories and universities employ hundreds of thousands of people -
Ideologically those people are unquestionably patriotic to Russia, and Putin maneuvers to keep their loyalty by giving them money and justifying their existence -
If instead the Russian Academy of Sciences could build rocket engines for peaceful purposes, or if instead the Russian military could rewrite its doctrine to channel more money into a professional cadre of NCOs, the loyalty would remain, but the nuclear missiles would be a thing of the past -
But that takes time and effort and creativity and an impetus that Putin does not have -
Repurposing the Bulava and aligning defense procurement contracts for the RS24 is easy -
I think you have to come up with some kind of evidence to back that assertion -
You do glance at the key issue - military spending - Russia's missile industry is an enormous patronage system that goes back deep into the heart of its scientific and military communities - all those generals and physicists, all those rocket production facilities, all those guaranteed contracts for heavy lifter engines -
Those people are Putin's core constituency, and their factories and universities employ hundreds of thousands of people -
Ideologically those people are unquestionably patriotic to Russia, and Putin maneuvers to keep their loyalty by giving them money and justifying their existence -
If instead the Russian Academy of Sciences could build rocket engines for peaceful purposes, or if instead the Russian military could rewrite its doctrine to channel more money into a professional cadre of NCOs, the loyalty would remain, but the nuclear missiles would be a thing of the past -
But that takes time and effort and creativity and an impetus that Putin does not have -
Repurposing the Bulava and aligning defense procurement contracts for the RS24 is easy -
The military industrial complex in the US should be delighted with this development. With republicans in charge of congress, the door is wide open to massive increases in spending on useless and dangerous nuclear weapons, while mid-east tensions keep spending on conventional forces at astronomical levels. Even under treaty terms there are far too many warheads on both sides; a few hundred each would more than guarantee total destruction of the planet. While Putin is undoubtedly a ruthless and calculating politician, US policy under past administrations of expanding NATO to Russian borders and maintaining US troops in Europe long after the cold war ended has been a pointless provocation (though not if you are a defense industry lobbyist). But I digress. The real game is to make sure that US 'defense' spending remains greater than that of the next 8 countries combined, ensuring that there is more than enough lobbyist budget to line US politicians' pockets. If it's not Russia, it will be China that's the excuse. Or maybe Iran. The result will be the same.
1
Russia is a huge country with many nations on its borders that have nuclear weapons, therefore the USA is not their only concern. After the fall of The Berlin wall and the defeat of communism, the west had a good chance of incorporating Russia in the western world but loosing a great enemy was against the interest of the CIA and the defense industry. With present policies Russia will become permanent part of the East.
4
The actual problem is that we exported and Russia imported neoliberal economic policies that a) couldn't possibly work in the immediate post-Soviet period, b) exposed Russia's fragile markets to competitive forces they couldn't endure and to rapacious predators, most of them (like Herr Putin) from the failed regime, and c) completely alienated the Russian people.
Too much of the West, not too little, too fast.
Too much of the West, not too little, too fast.
Appeasement won't work with Putin.
He was just surfing on the wave of high oil prices for those last years, steadily rebuilding his military power as well as his territorial ambitions. And he was not going to stay a partner any longer.
The west must stand firms, just like against USSR, and respond accordingly, in a prudent but solid manner. And sanctions must remain in place until Putin stop his destabilization of Ukraine.
He was just surfing on the wave of high oil prices for those last years, steadily rebuilding his military power as well as his territorial ambitions. And he was not going to stay a partner any longer.
The west must stand firms, just like against USSR, and respond accordingly, in a prudent but solid manner. And sanctions must remain in place until Putin stop his destabilization of Ukraine.
9
Joined up analytic thinking has clearly gone out of fashion in the Western MSM.
'Russia needs to know that defiance will come at a cost.'.The West under US pressure has initiated an economic war against Russia what are you going to do if they don't obey the US make it a shooting war? And your formulation makes Putin's case about Ukraine. Russian disobedience of a US diktat will not be tolerated. Having confirmed what Putin believe's I expect the Russian regime will proceed with its plans regardless of US threats.
'Russia needs to know that defiance will come at a cost.'.The West under US pressure has initiated an economic war against Russia what are you going to do if they don't obey the US make it a shooting war? And your formulation makes Putin's case about Ukraine. Russian disobedience of a US diktat will not be tolerated. Having confirmed what Putin believe's I expect the Russian regime will proceed with its plans regardless of US threats.
1
Let me make sure I get this. The Times is advocating our continuing to honor the I.N.F. treaty and pursue only diplomacy while acknowledging Russia is not honoring the treaty and, indeed, is saying "what violation?".
In the meantime, Putin denies there are have been any Russian troops in the Ukraine. He justified his invasion and annexation of Crimea while suggesting he was saving the Crimean people. And his government refuses to acknowledge conducting a missile test of the banned missiles while Obama apparently had proof.
I'm afraid the Cold War has returned and Putin is poking us and Europe in the eye while denying he is doing that. I'm sorry, if the Times reporting about these issues has been accurate he is behaving like the young Austrian before WW 11. That man lied as he annexed and consumed other countries into the Reich. He built up arms in violation of the terms following WW 1. And the world watched on hoping his next move would be his last hoping they could avoid a confrontation by placating Hitler and with diplomacy. Only Churchill wasn't naive and saw the truth.
Certainly continue to try to keep the dialogue going. But if the other party isn't negotiating in good faith poke him back in the eye. Start putting a few missiles back in Europe where we removed them. Let's not be naive.
In the meantime, Putin denies there are have been any Russian troops in the Ukraine. He justified his invasion and annexation of Crimea while suggesting he was saving the Crimean people. And his government refuses to acknowledge conducting a missile test of the banned missiles while Obama apparently had proof.
I'm afraid the Cold War has returned and Putin is poking us and Europe in the eye while denying he is doing that. I'm sorry, if the Times reporting about these issues has been accurate he is behaving like the young Austrian before WW 11. That man lied as he annexed and consumed other countries into the Reich. He built up arms in violation of the terms following WW 1. And the world watched on hoping his next move would be his last hoping they could avoid a confrontation by placating Hitler and with diplomacy. Only Churchill wasn't naive and saw the truth.
Certainly continue to try to keep the dialogue going. But if the other party isn't negotiating in good faith poke him back in the eye. Start putting a few missiles back in Europe where we removed them. Let's not be naive.
1
We need to press congressional representatives urging US withdrawal from the INF treaty exactly what such a move would gain, strategically, politically, militarily or morally. Not the diplomatic genius of the typical congressman, I could only benefit from the education of their perspective about the human benefit of more nukes.
Is this argument for resurrecting the Cold War like the one for more guns everywhere all the time on US soil?
www.endthemadnessnow.org
Is this argument for resurrecting the Cold War like the one for more guns everywhere all the time on US soil?
www.endthemadnessnow.org
Nuclear agreements do not stand isolated. They are part of a broader - partly informal - agreement to maintain a balance of power where neither side can win without massive destruction on both sides.
This agreement has increasingly been violated by the US. The targeting of any leader that even remotely was considered an ally of Russia (Milosevic, Saddam, Assad, Gaddafi), the sponsoring of color revolutions that have destabilized much of the neighborhood of Russia, the development of anti-missile systems and the accompanying abandoning of the ABM treaty and the recent economic warfare against Russia have all strengthened the impression that the US considers Russia fair game.
Unfortunately, as long as Obama keeps following a foreign policy that sees any other country that follows policies independent of the US as a threat, this problem is unsolvable and will only get worse.
This agreement has increasingly been violated by the US. The targeting of any leader that even remotely was considered an ally of Russia (Milosevic, Saddam, Assad, Gaddafi), the sponsoring of color revolutions that have destabilized much of the neighborhood of Russia, the development of anti-missile systems and the accompanying abandoning of the ABM treaty and the recent economic warfare against Russia have all strengthened the impression that the US considers Russia fair game.
Unfortunately, as long as Obama keeps following a foreign policy that sees any other country that follows policies independent of the US as a threat, this problem is unsolvable and will only get worse.
38
Warfare. Right. The US started it, by annexing Crimea (they decided to "come home,") threatening a sovereign country, and attempting to hold all of Europe hostage with fuel. Perhaps you should relocate to the country with your favorite foreign policies, and the most heroic leader. You could be the only one at the gate.
4
In June 2011 the Obama administration announced plans to spend $185 billion for modernization of the U.S. nuclear weapons complex In Kansas.
The Russians respond to US actions and the NYT doesn't say anything about that fact - why? It doesn't suit the propaganda mime?
The Putch in Ukraine was financed and organized by the USA the world knows that - the weapons in the hands of the Uk Military are now US made attacking their own people in the East.
American action begets reaction everywhere in the world that US covert actions are at play.
The Russians respond to US actions and the NYT doesn't say anything about that fact - why? It doesn't suit the propaganda mime?
The Putch in Ukraine was financed and organized by the USA the world knows that - the weapons in the hands of the Uk Military are now US made attacking their own people in the East.
American action begets reaction everywhere in the world that US covert actions are at play.
8
So, "Russia needs to know that defiance of arms control treaties will come at a cost." Really!
The US unilaterally revoked the ABM treaty under the Bush continuation of America's nuclear first strike policy, which helped to bring us Cold War II in the wake of the Nuland Putsch in Kiev. Putin was naturally deemed by the US to be the bad guy.
Israel has never bothered to sign the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty, but they have thermonuclear warheads with multiple delivery systems thanks to the US and Germany.
Iran which has no nuclear weaponization program, and which is in compliance with the NPT, which they did sign, has been punished for years because Israel which is in fact the nuclear rogue, demands that they be punished. The official policy of the US since Nixon blew his top when informed that Israel had nukes has been "ambiguity!"
So, "Russia needs to know that defiance of arms control treaties will come at a cost." Who is kidding who here?
The US unilaterally revoked the ABM treaty under the Bush continuation of America's nuclear first strike policy, which helped to bring us Cold War II in the wake of the Nuland Putsch in Kiev. Putin was naturally deemed by the US to be the bad guy.
Israel has never bothered to sign the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty, but they have thermonuclear warheads with multiple delivery systems thanks to the US and Germany.
Iran which has no nuclear weaponization program, and which is in compliance with the NPT, which they did sign, has been punished for years because Israel which is in fact the nuclear rogue, demands that they be punished. The official policy of the US since Nixon blew his top when informed that Israel had nukes has been "ambiguity!"
So, "Russia needs to know that defiance of arms control treaties will come at a cost." Who is kidding who here?
58
OMG, members of the stupidest, worst, most corrupt Congress in American history are now demanding the United States withdraw from the I.N.F. treaty!
These people are idiots whose macho ignorance could lead us into a new Cold War.
Oh yes, let's push Putin the megalomaniac far enough into a corner that he decides to retaliate against us.
What a great idea!
These people are idiots whose macho ignorance could lead us into a new Cold War.
Oh yes, let's push Putin the megalomaniac far enough into a corner that he decides to retaliate against us.
What a great idea!
15
You assert, and I take you at your word, that the Russians began cheating in 2008, yet Obama (and Hillary) didn't see fit to raise the issue until 2013? And now your solution to mounting evidence of cheating is to "negotiate." Negotiate what? Reagan proved that deeds speak more powerfully than words. If Russia knows that the U.S. will not escalate in response to their irresponsibility, what possible incentive will it have to stop? We've already seen the "power" of this administration's tactics in its failure to come to any agreement with Iran, which also sees weakness for what it is: weakness.
13
I suppose you prefer the "strength" exemplified by G.D.Bush? The strength that inflamed the entire Muslim world and cost us trillions in actual out-of-pocket expense and ruined our economy?
If that's what you call "strength," I'll take O's way.
If that's what you call "strength," I'll take O's way.
2
I suppose you prefer the "strength" exemplified by G.D.Bush? The strength that inflamed the entire Muslim world and cost us trillions in actual out-of-pocket expense and ruined our economy?
If that's what you call "strength," I'll take O's way.
If that's what you call "strength," I'll take O's way.
7
You are absolutely correct. Doing nothing is exactly what Hitler counted on the world doing, and he was right, as he took chunks of Czechoslovakia and Austria without firing a shot. Expose Putin for what he is doing. Counter with our own actions that don't respect our I.N.F. agreement with Russia. Russia can't and doesn't want to spend the resources in another arms race. But we cannot let them arm their western front because of their supposed concerns about NATO's presence on his west while we disarm along that same "front".
1
There is an old saying''rules are made to be broken''. US and Russia followed the nuclear agreement to some extent so far. Now the situation has changed, the rules are still on papers and the ink has not dried yet but the mutual distrust has gained sufficient momentum and reached to an extreme level once again.
Now Russia is Under economic snaction by US and western countries. Putin is fighting with it. He recently visited India and had arm , natural gas dealings with Pakistan also. He has extended his hand to other Asian countries including China and NK. It feels like a kind of proxy war.
Already in such situation, we can not expect Russia to take agreement paper in hand and read twice a day.
Also with other players on ground and they are also collecting piles of nuclear arsenal, this aggrement should be revived extensively and strictly.
Now Russia is Under economic snaction by US and western countries. Putin is fighting with it. He recently visited India and had arm , natural gas dealings with Pakistan also. He has extended his hand to other Asian countries including China and NK. It feels like a kind of proxy war.
Already in such situation, we can not expect Russia to take agreement paper in hand and read twice a day.
Also with other players on ground and they are also collecting piles of nuclear arsenal, this aggrement should be revived extensively and strictly.
Not only is the Republican controlled senate bent on withdrawing from treaties the U.S. has agreed to; they also refuse to enter into any treaties that won't satisfy the greed of the plutocrats.
No climate control treaty for them but the Asia / Pacific trade agreement is welcome. Republican senators lack of concern for the people of our country and the world is obnoxious.
No climate control treaty for them but the Asia / Pacific trade agreement is welcome. Republican senators lack of concern for the people of our country and the world is obnoxious.
The present day reality is that the U.S. has damn little leverage to induce changes in Russian policy be it in the nuclear or other realms. Advances in our Russian relationship have coincided with personnel changes. Reagan and Gorbachov were able to reach a nuclear arms agreement because there was internal support on both sides and a reward fro both nations i.e. cost savings. However, Obama and Putin will never do so because neither of them have support from within their respective nations to do so. Until Putin dies or retires the status quo will continue.
It is almost unthinkable and almost impossible that, being the more honest and better half of the US-Russia tango, we could have violated any of our agreements with the worse half, but I wonder if those non-respectors of mutual treaties consider the US to be in violation of any of the treaties.
Czars, Commissars, or Putins, Russia always stays the same. Hard to believe so many of today's Snowden faction right-wing Republicans pay obeisance to Moscow.
"...which the administration denies." Full stop. Where is the interrogation of this assertion? One would hope that the Times would have learned from its previous follies regarding Washington's assertions, and bring more scrutiny to official pronouncements. As to the editor's tabloid assertion that Putin wants to reconstitute the Soviet Union: resist scratching that rash.
1
Much ado about nothing. More drumming from warhawks who feel their relevance fading fast. Let Russia do whatever they want, point it out publicly, then announce you will put nukes in Poland. Russia will give up in a week.
1
Why are some nations singled out for violating nuclear and other arms agreements that other nations never signed nor are parties to?
Neither India nor Pakistan nor Israel nor North Korea are parties to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Agreement or any of the arms treaties or controls or conventions limiting, regulating or prohibiting chemical or biological weapons. Russia/Iran are.
Israel is the #1 recipient of American military aid. France gave nukes to Israel. Australia is selling uranium to India. Pakistan is more concerned about India than the Taliban. India is more worried about Pakistan than Larkshur al Taibbi.
But America harasses and intimidates Russia with creeping NATO and EU and EZ right up to it's borders. Ukraine and Russia have over a millennia of close ethnic sectarian ties. There was a democratic leadership in Kiev. Imagine the outrage if Russia were acting in Canada like America is in Ukraine. Crimea has been part of Russia and home to their navy. Russian Orthodox are aging and shrinking in and around Russia, The non-ethnic Russian Muslim native and neighboring populations are growing more youthful.
There are only 143 million Russians. Russia is sitting next to 1.3 billion Chinese, 1.2 billion Indians and near Pakistan which has the 2nd most Muslims. Japan while aging and shrinking has the 3rd economy as compared to Russia with the 8th along with a rising ethnic supremacist xenophobia and militarism that has targeted both Russia and China in the past.
Neither India nor Pakistan nor Israel nor North Korea are parties to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Agreement or any of the arms treaties or controls or conventions limiting, regulating or prohibiting chemical or biological weapons. Russia/Iran are.
Israel is the #1 recipient of American military aid. France gave nukes to Israel. Australia is selling uranium to India. Pakistan is more concerned about India than the Taliban. India is more worried about Pakistan than Larkshur al Taibbi.
But America harasses and intimidates Russia with creeping NATO and EU and EZ right up to it's borders. Ukraine and Russia have over a millennia of close ethnic sectarian ties. There was a democratic leadership in Kiev. Imagine the outrage if Russia were acting in Canada like America is in Ukraine. Crimea has been part of Russia and home to their navy. Russian Orthodox are aging and shrinking in and around Russia, The non-ethnic Russian Muslim native and neighboring populations are growing more youthful.
There are only 143 million Russians. Russia is sitting next to 1.3 billion Chinese, 1.2 billion Indians and near Pakistan which has the 2nd most Muslims. Japan while aging and shrinking has the 3rd economy as compared to Russia with the 8th along with a rising ethnic supremacist xenophobia and militarism that has targeted both Russia and China in the past.
6
Japan has the largest enriched uranium stockpile in the world of any nation without nuclear weapons.
China claims 30 million World War II dead from Japanese imperialism.
The Soviet Union lost 27.5 million World War II dead from German imperialism.
That is about 2/3rds of all of the World War II dead.
China claims 30 million World War II dead from Japanese imperialism.
The Soviet Union lost 27.5 million World War II dead from German imperialism.
That is about 2/3rds of all of the World War II dead.
I have no doubt that there are powerful forces in the USA who are just itching for more hegemony and will do whatever they can to subtly ratchet up the tension so they can sate their nostalgia for the Cold War. Even now plans are being made to spent billions on "modernizing" our nuclear arsenal.
Meanwhile, here at home we continue to fall further and further behind on those goals that we used to refer to as the "American Dream."
Meanwhile, here at home we continue to fall further and further behind on those goals that we used to refer to as the "American Dream."
5
Thank goodness, we have the Riddicular-in-Chief and smooth negotiating craftsman (as success with his legislative opposition so vividly demonstrates), President Barack Obama, at the helm as we navigate these treacherous waters.
Does this genius lay awake at night wondering how transformative a small nuclear exchange could Fundamentally change this Country he so despises?
Does this genius lay awake at night wondering how transformative a small nuclear exchange could Fundamentally change this Country he so despises?
To the Editors,
So what's the problem? "Mutually Assured Destruction" is about the only international policy that really worked in the 20th Century seemingly preventing a no holds bar World War 3. Maybe it will work just as well in the 21st Century.
Of course, as you point out, it seems it isn't just the U.S. versus the Soviet Union anymore with all sorts of "minor" players arming themselves with nukes and dripping with either nationalistic or religious "righteousness" as they prepare to obliterate their opponent's capitol city.
Face it, the nuclear genie/monster is out of the box and no amount of treaties, talks or limitations is going to put it back in.
Perhaps it's time for the two largest nuclear armed nations to form an alliance and "lay down the law" to the proto super powers; sort of a modified "M.A.D." with the "Destruction" part aimed at any transgression of whatever the two powers set as "ground rules".
History tells me that if enough people have nuclear devices, it's only a matter of time before "national pride" or "the word of god" tells them to start launching them at each other.
Then, as Mr. Obama and Mr. Putin glare at each other, it will be far too late for any such agreement between the two "Super Powers" and the world will descend into the nightmare that would be nuclear confrontation.
Leaving the situation "as is" just hastens the already progressing "6th Extinction".
So what's the problem? "Mutually Assured Destruction" is about the only international policy that really worked in the 20th Century seemingly preventing a no holds bar World War 3. Maybe it will work just as well in the 21st Century.
Of course, as you point out, it seems it isn't just the U.S. versus the Soviet Union anymore with all sorts of "minor" players arming themselves with nukes and dripping with either nationalistic or religious "righteousness" as they prepare to obliterate their opponent's capitol city.
Face it, the nuclear genie/monster is out of the box and no amount of treaties, talks or limitations is going to put it back in.
Perhaps it's time for the two largest nuclear armed nations to form an alliance and "lay down the law" to the proto super powers; sort of a modified "M.A.D." with the "Destruction" part aimed at any transgression of whatever the two powers set as "ground rules".
History tells me that if enough people have nuclear devices, it's only a matter of time before "national pride" or "the word of god" tells them to start launching them at each other.
Then, as Mr. Obama and Mr. Putin glare at each other, it will be far too late for any such agreement between the two "Super Powers" and the world will descend into the nightmare that would be nuclear confrontation.
Leaving the situation "as is" just hastens the already progressing "6th Extinction".
Deployment of American ground missiles in Europe is a non-starter with Europe. The article sounds like the Europeans have no say so, as if Europe is US territory. As someone who demonstrated in the early 80's in Europe against US missiles on European soil, I don't see that happening.
The credibility of the US is shot outside the country and to strut around in threatening poses might work for the uninformed US public, but not anymore in Europe.
The credibility of the US is shot outside the country and to strut around in threatening poses might work for the uninformed US public, but not anymore in Europe.
4
With the declining ruble and economic woes in Russia, Mr. Putin is losing face. And that is a dangerous situation, particularly with a personality like Vladimir Putin.
Revisiting and re-negotiating some of these treaties would be in everyone's interest and would give Mr. Putin something constructive and positive.
Revisiting and re-negotiating some of these treaties would be in everyone's interest and would give Mr. Putin something constructive and positive.
7
The absolute tragedy of Vladimir Putin's presence is that he has entirely and willfully trashed decades of the most patient and painstaking efforts to achieve nuclear disarmament. From this point on, no nation is going to believe they can do without a "nuclear deterrent" if they have any possibility of achieving one; in other words, disarmament is now a dead issue, and that fact is entirely in the lap of Tovarisch Putin. To argue that he or the Russians in general have good cause to fear NATO is truly absurd; I mean, really, the French, the Germans, they're really angling to invade Russia? Who would want to take on the problems of being responsible for it??
2
Sean - the answer to you unstated question is that France, France/UK the USA/UK, and Nazi Germany have all invaded Russia in the last 200 years.
Those pesky Russian they're just like that demented battery rabbit they just keep going.
Those pesky Russian they're just like that demented battery rabbit they just keep going.
This editorial is genuine, also in its strange but quite American perspective. It describes the acts of Russia as if there are no American policies and actions to which they might be a reaction. The US is a global and expansive power, since late 19th century till this very moment.It has been bringing missiles to the borders of the Sovient Union since Nato was created, and is now expanding Nato as if Russia were a serious threat to USA dominance. I value the Editorials of the NYT a lot but one would wish the Board would teach itself to look at the world from a perspective that does not have Washington DC as centre of the world.
8
Is it your contention, Mr. Cohen, that Putin's Russia is NOT a serious threat to the nations the borders of which are graced by the presence of Mother Russia?
You may wish to spend some time in Ukraine and in Georgia, or even Kazakstan and speak to the man on the street.
You may wish to spend some time in Ukraine and in Georgia, or even Kazakstan and speak to the man on the street.
Putin will be Putin, a thug who has no regard for anything but the interest of Russia. Wish O could be like that.
We could even the score and let Russia put missiles in Venezuela, Cuba, or even Lebanon. How would the NYT like those apples? Or we could examine the other possible reasons for the US wanting to eradicate Putin here,,, http://www.globalresearch.ca/free-fall-of-the-ruble-whos-behind-it-a-plo...
No new cold war! A senior Pentagon official suggests the possible installation of American ground-based nuclear missiles in Europe. We don't need them and most sound-thinking Europeans don't want them. Just because Putin annexes Crimea in no reason to go back to brinksmanship with Russia.
Emphatically I say to the military hawks: NO NEW COLD WAR!
Emphatically I say to the military hawks: NO NEW COLD WAR!
3
So what I gather from this, only the US has the birthright to develop advanced weapons and delivery systems, some clandestinely in Area 51.
And there is an indirect blame on China/India/Pakistan for Russia's paranoia but not the US. The US is a saint who is doing nothing over the years to modernize its weapons.
Every country has a right to take care of its interests and do whatever it can and should do to modernize its weapons based on threat perception. Putin is just doing that. The hypocrisy and prejudice shown by NYTIMES against Russia in particular in last few months has been disgusting to say the least.
And there is an indirect blame on China/India/Pakistan for Russia's paranoia but not the US. The US is a saint who is doing nothing over the years to modernize its weapons.
Every country has a right to take care of its interests and do whatever it can and should do to modernize its weapons based on threat perception. Putin is just doing that. The hypocrisy and prejudice shown by NYTIMES against Russia in particular in last few months has been disgusting to say the least.
5
Yes there are a lot of other factors at work also, not mentioned here.
How about a deep analysis of the chaos our foreign policy produces, and its effects worldwide?
Our hypocrisy is only exceeded by our arrogance. This is not what made this country great. Endless empire/endless war foreign policy -never changing in spite of decades of failure--put forward on half-truths or outright lies is ruining us as a nation, has ruined much of what made us robust. It can't be denied in good faith.
Trying to scare us with bogeymen abroad, whether Putin or ISIS or Ho Chi Minh and barbaric communists is tried and true, keep us scared and compliant, wanting high security and strong Military/Defense/Intelligence----and sounds like faint whistle for a strong on defense president in 2016.
Straight propaganda, regardless. Putin would recognize it in a nanosecond. Please say we haven't devolved to this in NYT.
How about a deep analysis of the chaos our foreign policy produces, and its effects worldwide?
Our hypocrisy is only exceeded by our arrogance. This is not what made this country great. Endless empire/endless war foreign policy -never changing in spite of decades of failure--put forward on half-truths or outright lies is ruining us as a nation, has ruined much of what made us robust. It can't be denied in good faith.
Trying to scare us with bogeymen abroad, whether Putin or ISIS or Ho Chi Minh and barbaric communists is tried and true, keep us scared and compliant, wanting high security and strong Military/Defense/Intelligence----and sounds like faint whistle for a strong on defense president in 2016.
Straight propaganda, regardless. Putin would recognize it in a nanosecond. Please say we haven't devolved to this in NYT.
12
I am not sure I understand your comments. While the Iraq war was sold to the US public based on lies, the same cannot be said about communism, or ISIS. Try to talk to someone who has lived under communist rule, or try to post your comments from Mosul or Tehran or Pyongyang. Do not lump everything together and do not devalue the protection that US gives you in expressing your opinions. There is oppression in the world and there are truly barbaric regimes out there, with or without US intervention.
1
And perhaps it's time to stop viewing the world in a bipolar manner, as if the only two nations with nuclear weapons are ourselves and the Russians, and we can ignore the arsenals of all the others. Maybe we should try to come to a larger agreement on nuclear weaponry, limiting the growth and capabilities of everyone's nukes.
We should also recognize that while we accuse the Russians of violating our agreements and they accuse us of the same, we must ask why it is that the Russians feel so compelled to develop banned weaponry when our supposedly logical view of them is that doing so is a lose/lose proposition for both sides. Is it possible that, even a decade ago, they were not as reconciled to living peacefully with us as we had thought? Or perhaps they believe we are not?
And those are the questions we must resolve if we are to move forward on this issue.
We should also recognize that while we accuse the Russians of violating our agreements and they accuse us of the same, we must ask why it is that the Russians feel so compelled to develop banned weaponry when our supposedly logical view of them is that doing so is a lose/lose proposition for both sides. Is it possible that, even a decade ago, they were not as reconciled to living peacefully with us as we had thought? Or perhaps they believe we are not?
And those are the questions we must resolve if we are to move forward on this issue.
2
Obama has not really confronted Putin's aggression. Yes, the economic sanctions are a first step.
As Romney said, the US needs a backbone. Not wars or aggression, but smart diplomacy that commands, not asks for, respect.
As Romney said, the US needs a backbone. Not wars or aggression, but smart diplomacy that commands, not asks for, respect.
5
Couldn't you tell which country murdered more people than any other during this fifteen years?
4
Respect is earned by respectful behavior.
Please, Mr/Ms/Dr R, tell us that your comment is satirical. Mitt Romney -- he of the cartoonish desperation to demonstrate his "severe" conservatism -- showing President Obama what it is to have a spine? Surely you jest.
www.endthemadnessnow.org
Please, Mr/Ms/Dr R, tell us that your comment is satirical. Mitt Romney -- he of the cartoonish desperation to demonstrate his "severe" conservatism -- showing President Obama what it is to have a spine? Surely you jest.
www.endthemadnessnow.org
4
Just another sound bite without any solutions. What are your suggestions? It is easy to complain and blame. Smart diplomacy is what? No aggression? What are we to do, have tea and biscuits and talk smartly?
2
Hiroshima was hit with 15 kilotons. Just a single modern one megaton thermonuclear bomb is eighty times that vaporizing force. More than all the explosions in WWll.
Imagine a train carrying the equivalent of such a bomb in tons of TNT. It would be loaded with 1,000,000 tons. It would be 300 miles long. Traveling at 50 mph it would take 6 hours to pass.
We are all marks in the shell game of The Masters of War.
All nuclear weapons must be destroyed and banned. Forever. All nuclear power must be eliminated. Forever. Radiation is still bleeding with no end in sight from Fukushima up to Alaska and on it's way down to Chile. We must stop the madness.
Imagine a train carrying the equivalent of such a bomb in tons of TNT. It would be loaded with 1,000,000 tons. It would be 300 miles long. Traveling at 50 mph it would take 6 hours to pass.
We are all marks in the shell game of The Masters of War.
All nuclear weapons must be destroyed and banned. Forever. All nuclear power must be eliminated. Forever. Radiation is still bleeding with no end in sight from Fukushima up to Alaska and on it's way down to Chile. We must stop the madness.
22
We can't stop the madness until we recognize that we are mad. It's not an easy thing to ask.
I think the first step is to recognize that the force of evil is real, and we are in its grip.
I think the first step is to recognize that the force of evil is real, and we are in its grip.
2
Dear President Obama and President Putin. Please visit Hiroshima and Nagasaki this year, after 70 years from dropping of nuclear weapons. You should visit the atomic bomb museums in both cities and remember what happened in summer of 1945. Indeed cities have been rebuild but quite a few atomic survivors have been suffering from the effect of radiation even now. It is important for the leaders of nuclear powers to learn again the atrocious consequences for ordinary people brought by atomic bombs.
10
I think they do know, Matsuda, but, even if they didn't, there is no political capital in it, so don't count on it.
1
I agree that our response to Russian violations should involve the economic sanctions, the build up of antimissile shields and in general the defense systems.
Putin knows that the only way he can pressure the West to submission is with the fear of war and destruction. This is the kind of message he wants to send, particularly to EU, because scared populations can alter politics in democratic countries. The MAD paradigm can work well for him. He does not have to worry about Russians because, for now, he completely controls them. Placing the emphasis on our defenses will help alleviate the worries in EU and deny Putin his most important strategic tools.
We also need to understand that we must take for Russia a long term policy perspective on the defense buildup and economy pressures, perhaps for a couple of decades. I do not believe that positive changes in Russian attitude are going to come in months or even in a few years. We should rather expect the things may get much worse before they get better but we need to be persistent.
Putin knows that the only way he can pressure the West to submission is with the fear of war and destruction. This is the kind of message he wants to send, particularly to EU, because scared populations can alter politics in democratic countries. The MAD paradigm can work well for him. He does not have to worry about Russians because, for now, he completely controls them. Placing the emphasis on our defenses will help alleviate the worries in EU and deny Putin his most important strategic tools.
We also need to understand that we must take for Russia a long term policy perspective on the defense buildup and economy pressures, perhaps for a couple of decades. I do not believe that positive changes in Russian attitude are going to come in months or even in a few years. We should rather expect the things may get much worse before they get better but we need to be persistent.
4
What submission or pressure? Idiotic.Compare the economies.Why isn't it for Russia to change American attitude by organising subversive opponents in USA as a long term policy?
1
Yea, they would love to organize subversion in US as they try, partially successfully, in EU. Fortunately, their reach is not long enough and we must keep it this way. As for the submission and pressure, I recommend you spend some time in EU, particularly in the countries at NATO Eastern perimeter so eventually you may be able to understand what I mean.
We are going to regret ever so deeply the way have systematically antagonized Russia since the collapse of the USSR in 1992. Read the recent statements by Gorbachov expressing his disappointment with the West. Gorby handed the West a future with Russia, a chance for lasting good will and cooperation that we simply threw away. Russia was on a course of becoming a western-alinged power no more.
The US will lose influence in Europe as the young electorate of Germany and central European moves right and away from moderate US-friendly parties. Hungary is already run by the Putin-friendly Jobik and Fidez right parties and ready to leave Western orbit. Second, Russian policy will set aside its deep mistrust of China to coordinate an anti-US foreign policy. The there is the already alarming remilitarization of Russia reaching a new order of magnitude where we cannot keep pace. (We buy rocket motors from Russia for our space program.)
Russia can Finlandize Europe and our East Asian allies like Japan. We need to get over this Ukraine nonsense. Sanctions will only lead Russia to scrap any semblance of consumer economy for a militarized command economy. Mr. Putin is not unique. Russia wants a Czar. Mr. Putin does not rule democratically, but he has the loyalty of his people and is in a position to demand and receive sacrifices. Better hit that reset button again. We have too many problems already. We can't afford to make an enemy of this caliber.
The US will lose influence in Europe as the young electorate of Germany and central European moves right and away from moderate US-friendly parties. Hungary is already run by the Putin-friendly Jobik and Fidez right parties and ready to leave Western orbit. Second, Russian policy will set aside its deep mistrust of China to coordinate an anti-US foreign policy. The there is the already alarming remilitarization of Russia reaching a new order of magnitude where we cannot keep pace. (We buy rocket motors from Russia for our space program.)
Russia can Finlandize Europe and our East Asian allies like Japan. We need to get over this Ukraine nonsense. Sanctions will only lead Russia to scrap any semblance of consumer economy for a militarized command economy. Mr. Putin is not unique. Russia wants a Czar. Mr. Putin does not rule democratically, but he has the loyalty of his people and is in a position to demand and receive sacrifices. Better hit that reset button again. We have too many problems already. We can't afford to make an enemy of this caliber.
45
Ridiculous we should just roll over no we should station missiles on Russia's border and ratchet up the pressure until Russia agrees to comply with the treaty.
You are absolutely correct, but the US must continue to antagonize Russia and sow fear in Europe in order to keep Nato relevant. If the EU (Germany) were to recognize that Russia is an integral part of Europe, the integration of Russia into the EU would make the US irrelevant on the Continent. Europe would become an unprecedented Economic Juggernaut. This the US will never allow even if it means war.
1
Having been personally involved in various businesses in both Russia and Ukraine since January of 1992 I am in total agreement with the sentiments you so eloquently expressed.
I would like to add that the NYT Editorial Board comment that Russia "began testing a new cruise missile as early as 2008" is true, however, in my opinion quite disingenuous. The US has been actively utilizing its own cruise missile inventory in every one of its military adventures going back to President Reagan's authorized attach on Libya in 1986, followed by the 1st Gulf War, the Yugoslavian Campaign, the war in Afghanistan, the 2nd Gulf War, attacks in Pakistan along with close collaboration by the US and Israeli governments in the use of cruise missiles against various Arab states during the past 20+ years.
During this period America's stock of cruise missiles have been greatly improved and upgraded. This has been accomplished not in a "testing environment" but in real time and on an actual battlefield involving both military and civilian causalities. According to the terms of the treaty referred to by the NYT Editorial Board, this is not considered testing.
It would seem to this reader that Russia's having resorted to "testing" and improving of their cruise missile stockpile, in the face of what the US has been doing over the past 25+ years militarily, might well be considered in the best interests of the Russian people?
I would like to add that the NYT Editorial Board comment that Russia "began testing a new cruise missile as early as 2008" is true, however, in my opinion quite disingenuous. The US has been actively utilizing its own cruise missile inventory in every one of its military adventures going back to President Reagan's authorized attach on Libya in 1986, followed by the 1st Gulf War, the Yugoslavian Campaign, the war in Afghanistan, the 2nd Gulf War, attacks in Pakistan along with close collaboration by the US and Israeli governments in the use of cruise missiles against various Arab states during the past 20+ years.
During this period America's stock of cruise missiles have been greatly improved and upgraded. This has been accomplished not in a "testing environment" but in real time and on an actual battlefield involving both military and civilian causalities. According to the terms of the treaty referred to by the NYT Editorial Board, this is not considered testing.
It would seem to this reader that Russia's having resorted to "testing" and improving of their cruise missile stockpile, in the face of what the US has been doing over the past 25+ years militarily, might well be considered in the best interests of the Russian people?
33
And now for something completely different.
Consider: he could be right.
Oh, not about unilaterally abrogating treaties with the U.S., but about the fact that nuclear arsenals and related technology are becoming more formidable in the least stable parts of the world while the U.S. and Russia talk about limiting their own efforts in this area -- despite the fact that we've managed to enforce relative stability on the world for 65 years since the U.S.S.R. obtained nuclear weapon capability.
Frankly, despite Russian incursions in Ukraine, I'm a lot less concerned about Russian nuclear arms given our counter-strike capability than I am about North Korea, Pakistan or, soon enough, Iran. Putin is starting to demonstrate some reserve, impelled no doubt by the collapse of oil prices; but real, and his convictions are nationalistic and not religious. We have far more to fear from religious extremists than from an oil-defanged Vladimir Putin.
Perhaps one road to a true "reset" if we can find some face-saving way out of Ukraine is for a JOINT program of global nuclear risk mitigation focused on all those unstable hotspots.
Consider: he could be right.
Oh, not about unilaterally abrogating treaties with the U.S., but about the fact that nuclear arsenals and related technology are becoming more formidable in the least stable parts of the world while the U.S. and Russia talk about limiting their own efforts in this area -- despite the fact that we've managed to enforce relative stability on the world for 65 years since the U.S.S.R. obtained nuclear weapon capability.
Frankly, despite Russian incursions in Ukraine, I'm a lot less concerned about Russian nuclear arms given our counter-strike capability than I am about North Korea, Pakistan or, soon enough, Iran. Putin is starting to demonstrate some reserve, impelled no doubt by the collapse of oil prices; but real, and his convictions are nationalistic and not religious. We have far more to fear from religious extremists than from an oil-defanged Vladimir Putin.
Perhaps one road to a true "reset" if we can find some face-saving way out of Ukraine is for a JOINT program of global nuclear risk mitigation focused on all those unstable hotspots.
11
The lesson that smaller countries learn from this is that you are nothing if you don't have nukes. Unless something changes radically nuclear proliferation will speed up.
1
Paul:
There's a limit to what smaller countries can do with nukes, given the excessive cost of doing it -- Iran wouldn't be doing it without petro-wealth. North Korea had to impose a totalitarian tyranny in order to develop theirs, and the technology was gifted from Pakistan, whose original impelling motivation was hatred of India.
But that's what I mean by the big guys getting together to JOINTLY develop a global nuclear threat mitigation program.
There's a limit to what smaller countries can do with nukes, given the excessive cost of doing it -- Iran wouldn't be doing it without petro-wealth. North Korea had to impose a totalitarian tyranny in order to develop theirs, and the technology was gifted from Pakistan, whose original impelling motivation was hatred of India.
But that's what I mean by the big guys getting together to JOINTLY develop a global nuclear threat mitigation program.
The sanctions were a game changer. Russia cannot rebuild its economy in a manner that would leave it again exposed to these consequences. So lifting the sanctions doesn't matter. These arms limitations agreements are also out of date. Russia no longer includes the all of the nations of the Soviet Union, and there are many more NATO nations to target. To maintain a credible deterrent, Russia will need many more short and long range nuclear missiles. This is the new reality going forward, and we shouldn't overreact.
20
Wrong you sound like you are an appeaser it will not work work.
1
A credible deterrent to what, an invasion of Russia by NATO? Putin does not imagine that that is a real possibility; we should not do his propaganda work for him by hinting that it is. I hope you're not suggesting that Russia needs short- and long-range nuclear weapons as a deterrent to economic sanctions against their bad behavior.
1
Can you specifically name the EU countries that threaten militarily Russia so Putin needs all these missiles against them?
Appeasement didn't work with Germany in the 1930's, see Neville Chamberlain. What the NY Times wants is to negotiate, to continue to negotiate to appease the Russians. What the West needs is a Europe that is willing to stand with the US and not appease the Russians but hold them accountable. NATO is not viable if it turns a blind eye to treaty violations.
14
The Europeans are burned by the US, first the get lied into the Iraq war, the they find out they supported a criminal torture system and the Afghanistan mission under NATO was just bungled without any self reflection or consequences. Russia poses no threat to the EU, idiotic US politicians on the other hand can be very bad.
Whatever happened to "speak softly & carry a big stick"? 2015 America is considerably more capable than 1939 Great Britain. American military might is indisputably the largest single force in the world. We can afford to make every possible effort to negotiate prior to making any threats, which of course are always implied anyway. And, as we have seen, economic sanctions carry great weight.
NATO is not viable if it feels the need to scream & shout at every possible disagreement. It is much more effective as the quietly implied threat that it has often been. Accountability is best maintained by stating simple facts. Incessant saber rattling undermines credibility.
NATO is not viable if it feels the need to scream & shout at every possible disagreement. It is much more effective as the quietly implied threat that it has often been. Accountability is best maintained by stating simple facts. Incessant saber rattling undermines credibility.
Appeasement and negotiation are not the same things.
Russia properly considers the financial warfare being waged against it as acts of war and has had no success in working with this administration on areas of mutual concern. The Times continues the drumbeat against Putin on a daily basis and repeats the lie of a Russian invasion of Ukraine. It is not Europe, but Russia that is threatened by NATO drive to pull up to Russia's doorstep with forward deployment of missiles. Russia's actions viv-a-vis Ukraine have been purely defensive in nature.
26
Russia was not attacked by Ukraine. Their actions have not been purely defensive. They are the aggressors in this conflict. Ukraine has no desire to harm Russia they just want to be left alone to sort out their own problems.
3
Russia is already reeling from the economic sanctions already imposed upon it, the full impact of which is still yet to be integrated fully into its banking system and markets. Russia therefore clearly KNOWS that defiance will come at a cost. The issue is whether Mr. Putins and Russian pride will be hurt to the effect that he feels he has no choice but to act belligerently rather than bargain. His coin is to be the strong forthright bear of a leader. If wounded he will attack. His pride and his passion will come before reason and negotiation. This is not the time for further angry instant punitive measures. If there were ever a time for deep and patient wisdom, it must be when dealing with a wounded leader of a wounded country that possesses several thousand nuclear weapons.
4
"Russia needs to know that defiance will come at a cost." And, what, pray tell, will that cost be?? Those are empty words, devoid of meaning.
Nobody seems to remember that we promised not to expand NATO but violated that agreement. But "We're the good guys, so that is OK." Russia certainly does not see it that way. They feel very threatened because their society isn't working very well. The fact that it is their System that causes their dysfunction is opaque to the leadership.
What we need to do is discover what are Russia's minimum needed conditions for peaceful resolution of the issues. It may be we can't agree to them. But, it may be that we can. We simply don't know right now. If we find out we can't agree to them, then we know what we need to do to ensure no miscalculations on the part of anyone. That includes continuous communication and dialogue. Better to "jaw, jaw, jaw than war, war, war", as some famous person is reputed to have said.
Nobody seems to remember that we promised not to expand NATO but violated that agreement. But "We're the good guys, so that is OK." Russia certainly does not see it that way. They feel very threatened because their society isn't working very well. The fact that it is their System that causes their dysfunction is opaque to the leadership.
What we need to do is discover what are Russia's minimum needed conditions for peaceful resolution of the issues. It may be we can't agree to them. But, it may be that we can. We simply don't know right now. If we find out we can't agree to them, then we know what we need to do to ensure no miscalculations on the part of anyone. That includes continuous communication and dialogue. Better to "jaw, jaw, jaw than war, war, war", as some famous person is reputed to have said.
4
The US did not promise to expand NATO. That was discussed by Gorbachev opted for money from Germany instead.
http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/141845/mary-elise-sarotte/a-broke...
http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/141845/mary-elise-sarotte/a-broke...
1
Wrong we never promised anything in writing.
1
"Defiance will come at a cost."
Yeah, right. Russia has looked at how Obama has dealt with Iran and what Cuba gave up to get sanctions lifted (hint: nothing) and realizes that defiance pays. Prediction: in return for Russia agreeing to adhere, at least in theory, to existing nuclear agreements, Obama will ease sanctions imposed in response to Ukraine and Crimea. Give the carrot, withhold the stick and give a speech about 'resolving' the issue and recognizing our 'mutual common interests' going forward. Smart diplomacy indeed.
Yeah, right. Russia has looked at how Obama has dealt with Iran and what Cuba gave up to get sanctions lifted (hint: nothing) and realizes that defiance pays. Prediction: in return for Russia agreeing to adhere, at least in theory, to existing nuclear agreements, Obama will ease sanctions imposed in response to Ukraine and Crimea. Give the carrot, withhold the stick and give a speech about 'resolving' the issue and recognizing our 'mutual common interests' going forward. Smart diplomacy indeed.
2
With trigger-happy Republicans in charge of Congress and Senator “bomb, bomb, bomb” McCain taking over as the Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, it is more than likely Congress will pass a resolution forcing us to withdraw from the INF. President Obama better sharpen that veto pen, which has been blunted by disuse over the past six years. With Putin behaving erratically and Republicans itching for one-upmanship with Russia, we all need to fasten our seatbelts; it’s going to be a bumpy two years!
7
Sorry you can not veto withdrawal from a treaty.
It takes two to tango. If we want Russia to give up more of its nuclear weaponry and not start any new programs, we must offer something in return. Hitting Russia with sanctions is not the answer; all it does is provoke Putin and the Russians into some kind of retaliation. That's how cold wars, and sometimes hot wars, get started. Instead, we have to make the Russians, ourselves, and other nuclear nations see the overarching need to defuse nuclear weapons around the world.
20
I am curious about how you compose your comments; do you guys discuss it and draft a joint statement? Or are you so comfortable with each other's opinion that you allow them to post under your combined authorship?
You seem to misunderstand the situation. The US does not "want Russia to give up more of its nuclear weaponry." The issue here is Russia's unilateral violation of a treaty that it is party to by developing new weapons.
Russia is taking advantage of an opportunity. The US military is worn out in terms of manpower and equipment and cannot respond to Russian moves to gain the upper hand on the US and NATO. The US government and US taxpayer are worn out paying for distant wars and now reluctant to fund major new weapons purchases to rebuild the nuclear weapons complex and the nuclear weapons force. In the coming decade we should expect to see Russia, and China, take steps to gain the strategic advantage over the US and NATO. Sanctions will only go so far in slowing their advance.
3
Unlike US, Russia and China do not pursue an essentially military strategy. Their strategy is to build their economies, while the US ruins its own by pouring money into unproductive military assets.
But the US fixation on its military is profitable for the elite, and when the economy collapses they will put their assets somewhere else.
But the US fixation on its military is profitable for the elite, and when the economy collapses they will put their assets somewhere else.
1
I'm sure Putin is quaking in his boots at the threat of more US sanctions in response to treaty violations. He has reason to be fearful. After all, Obama certainly scared him with his reaction to the initial invasion of Ukraine and takeover of Crimea when BO responded with MREs for the Ukrainian military.
2
During the cold war, the US was constantly challenged by the USSR to retreat from its position of protector of western Europe. The US did not back down. The US should not now.
7
1. The Russians have not "invaded" Ukraine, nor did they "take" Crimea. A Russian Invasion of Ukraine would have their tanks at the Dnieper River, not then supporting separatist Russian speaking Ukrainians who did not vote for the government in Kiev. Likewise you see no demands from Crimeans to be free of Moscow. The NYT pulls the wool over American eyes on both points.
2. It is American support for Ukraine that is getting people killed in Ukraine, not Russian support for Russians in Ukraine. The us could turn off the violence spigot tomorrow. Notice the Russians just arranged for huge coal shipments to Ukraine. This is not the act of an aggressor.
3. It is the height of hypocrisy to call out Russia for refocusing on medium range strategic weapons, while coaxing Ukraine to join Nato. Hyper nationalist Ukraine in Nato, with a hostile-to-Russia US shoveling it weapons and money, demands Russia rearm or risk succumbing to Western military blackmail. If America had ever suffered 1/100th the carnage of war as Russia, this would not questioned.
All of this is so easy to see, it's pretty ridiculous to watch the endless anti-Putin propaganda out of this paper. Russia is annexing and invading, and must be sanctioned to death. Meanwhile according to this Board, the Palestinians are wrong to call out Israel. Hypocrisy!
2. It is American support for Ukraine that is getting people killed in Ukraine, not Russian support for Russians in Ukraine. The us could turn off the violence spigot tomorrow. Notice the Russians just arranged for huge coal shipments to Ukraine. This is not the act of an aggressor.
3. It is the height of hypocrisy to call out Russia for refocusing on medium range strategic weapons, while coaxing Ukraine to join Nato. Hyper nationalist Ukraine in Nato, with a hostile-to-Russia US shoveling it weapons and money, demands Russia rearm or risk succumbing to Western military blackmail. If America had ever suffered 1/100th the carnage of war as Russia, this would not questioned.
All of this is so easy to see, it's pretty ridiculous to watch the endless anti-Putin propaganda out of this paper. Russia is annexing and invading, and must be sanctioned to death. Meanwhile according to this Board, the Palestinians are wrong to call out Israel. Hypocrisy!
39
Russia absolutely invaded Ukraine. The seizure of Crimea took place after its troops broke out of their basis and ran a "referendum" done under Russian guns and with no credible international observation. The bloodshed in Ukraine was initiated first by Russia's client Yanukovich and then by a Russian-sponsored rebellion backed by Russian military intervention. A Russain invasion doesn't go further than the Donbass because even Putin and his most fervent partisans couldn't run rhetorical interference for that.
"Notice the Russians just arranged for huge coal shipments to Ukraine. This is not the act of an aggressor."
It absolutely can be; it is the carrot-and-stick approach.
"Notice the Russians just arranged for huge coal shipments to Ukraine. This is not the act of an aggressor."
It absolutely can be; it is the carrot-and-stick approach.
3
Russian script.
You do see Crimeans being kidnapped, disappearing and suffering all sorts of discrimination if they oppose the Russian occupation of their territory. Russian soldiers are fighting in the Donbas. The height of hypocrisy is suggesting Russia is the victim here.
Russia is annexing and invading and must indeed be sanctioned to death. Maybe the US and China can partition it, for its own good, the way Russia,Poland and others used to do with Ukraine.
You do see Crimeans being kidnapped, disappearing and suffering all sorts of discrimination if they oppose the Russian occupation of their territory. Russian soldiers are fighting in the Donbas. The height of hypocrisy is suggesting Russia is the victim here.
Russia is annexing and invading and must indeed be sanctioned to death. Maybe the US and China can partition it, for its own good, the way Russia,Poland and others used to do with Ukraine.
2
Wrong Russia must adhere to treaties it signed no one is coaxing Ukraine to do anything where do you come up with this stuff.
2
The U.S. should destroy all of our nukes, tomorrow. They are genocidal weapons that we won't ever use. No one is going to nuke us.
If a state attacks us it is the end of the world.
Once ours are gone the world must act to destroy the rest of the nukes. It's no longer if, but just when someone will detonate one, by accident or by madness. Just read the recent books about how close we came, multiple times.
What if ISI got one from Pakistan? Or Russia?
If a state attacks us it is the end of the world.
Once ours are gone the world must act to destroy the rest of the nukes. It's no longer if, but just when someone will detonate one, by accident or by madness. Just read the recent books about how close we came, multiple times.
What if ISI got one from Pakistan? Or Russia?
2
A great deal of the motivation and expertise to craft these treaties comes from former nuclear scientists in the US and Soviet Union. On early retirement from the labs, many weapons designers have second careers working for disarmament.
The "last generation" that had direct experience with these weapons (in underground testing) and intimate knowledge of what "can happen" are phasing out of involvement, though.
These treaties are not constructed on trust. They represent mutual exchanges of stockpile information, design information, and the capability to verify the information. Scientist to scientists. Tens of thousands of hours of detailed technical work; that only a few have the experience to do.
Those who follow will work without the same level of knowledge and confidence. Motivation, and urgency, as well. That any entity is talking about redeployment, indicates to me, that this change of the guard has begun.
The "last generation" that had direct experience with these weapons (in underground testing) and intimate knowledge of what "can happen" are phasing out of involvement, though.
These treaties are not constructed on trust. They represent mutual exchanges of stockpile information, design information, and the capability to verify the information. Scientist to scientists. Tens of thousands of hours of detailed technical work; that only a few have the experience to do.
Those who follow will work without the same level of knowledge and confidence. Motivation, and urgency, as well. That any entity is talking about redeployment, indicates to me, that this change of the guard has begun.
24
Mr. Putin appears to have feelings of inadequacy which lead him personally to over-emphasize his waning masculinity, and professionally to rattle his global sabre while attacking his next-door neighbors without provocation. His paranoia about Russia's standing in the world is both frightening and certifiable. The rest of the world can only hope that someone with a bit more sanity somehow comes to power in the Kremlin sooner rather than later.
4
Is it time to seek a multi-national nuclear reduction agreement to levels that would threaten no one?
1
What costs exactly to Russia are the editors talking about?
The Obama administration has succeeded in turning a sometime partner into a mortal enemy.
Nice going.
The Obama administration has succeeded in turning a sometime partner into a mortal enemy.
Nice going.
10
Eric, I disagree with most of his policies. He has not done a good job on foreign policy in my view (few, if any successes and a number of failures). Nor do I think America is always right. But, to suggest that he turned Russia into a mortal enemy is to ignore all history, modern politics and the existence of Putin. This is on Russia, whether or not he handled it with skill. Frankly, I think it is hyperbolic criticism of the type you make (same type as held that he wasn't born in America or was a secret Muslim or hated America, etc.) that significantly contributed to his re-election, despite the doubts of so many people and his record.
Russian planners have stated explicitly for years that they will retaliate with nuclear artillery to a ground invasion from the west. This is roughly symmetric with U.S. refusal to eschew a nuclear first strike in case of war.
Given these facts and George W. Bush's abrogation of the anti-ballistic missile treaty (ABM) in 2002, it seems to me rather disingenuous to start harping on Russia's refusal to give up its battlefield nuclear weapons (INF).
Nuclear chicken is a stupid and terrifyingly dangerous game to play except for those Cold War types whose mentalities are so many steps removed from the reality that the rest of the human race inhabits that as far as I am concerned they are insane.
U.S. instruments such as the NED (National Endowment for Democracy) have successfully destabilized Ukraine, so Washington is pushing what apparently feels like an advantage to pressure Putin further.
Remember our kleptomaniac pal Ferdinand Marcos, who stole just about all of the Philippines' wealth when he abdicated finally? Par for the course for the numerous, always brutal and unbelievably corrupt, strongmen the U.S. has installed and supported as long as possible because they made nice with American corporations?
Brutal, corrupt dictators who don't toe the American line, like Putin, Gaddafi, Saddam Hussein, are pariahs to be driven into the netherworld. So far only peasants in far off places die and their countries are destroyed. Nuclear confrontation is more dangerous for us.
Given these facts and George W. Bush's abrogation of the anti-ballistic missile treaty (ABM) in 2002, it seems to me rather disingenuous to start harping on Russia's refusal to give up its battlefield nuclear weapons (INF).
Nuclear chicken is a stupid and terrifyingly dangerous game to play except for those Cold War types whose mentalities are so many steps removed from the reality that the rest of the human race inhabits that as far as I am concerned they are insane.
U.S. instruments such as the NED (National Endowment for Democracy) have successfully destabilized Ukraine, so Washington is pushing what apparently feels like an advantage to pressure Putin further.
Remember our kleptomaniac pal Ferdinand Marcos, who stole just about all of the Philippines' wealth when he abdicated finally? Par for the course for the numerous, always brutal and unbelievably corrupt, strongmen the U.S. has installed and supported as long as possible because they made nice with American corporations?
Brutal, corrupt dictators who don't toe the American line, like Putin, Gaddafi, Saddam Hussein, are pariahs to be driven into the netherworld. So far only peasants in far off places die and their countries are destroyed. Nuclear confrontation is more dangerous for us.
31
They are not insane but flat out evil. These devils are the agents of the Lord of Death. If they provoke a nuclear war they will be glad.
What with the decline of religion we don't believe in evil any more. But the force of evil is real and human devils are among us and in charge of US. We had better wise up before it is all over.
What with the decline of religion we don't believe in evil any more. But the force of evil is real and human devils are among us and in charge of US. We had better wise up before it is all over.
1
Two problems:
First, Russia is surrounded by states that are outside that Treaty, and deploying many such missiles. N Korea, China, India, Pakistan, Iran, Israel, all the way around, and more threatened in response. Russia has a real problem, and the US does not have the same problem.
The solution is to expand the Treaty, and allow some balancing. That was done with the Naval Disarmament Treaties in the 1920's and 30's, where all were limited, but not all limits were exactly the same to accomodate balancing off, and it is again the answer here.
Second, the Russians are still deeply offended by the US unilaterally abandoning an arms control treaty that they find threatening, more so because we are pushing exactly those previously-banned weapons right up to the Russian border. We have some concerns about Iran and N Korea that cause us to act, but we do it in ways that the Russians (correctly) see as threatening even though we deny that.
We can't walk away from some when we think circumstances have changed, then expect they won't walk away from others when circumstances change around them.
Putin has cited this concern as an independent reason to walk out of a treaty we want -- we walk out of what he wanted to keep, and so he walks out of one we wanted to keep. That is how diplomacy works, always has been. Tit-for-tat is the basic method.
This Editorial ought to have addressed these concerns, not just repeated the current US position without explanation or discussion.
First, Russia is surrounded by states that are outside that Treaty, and deploying many such missiles. N Korea, China, India, Pakistan, Iran, Israel, all the way around, and more threatened in response. Russia has a real problem, and the US does not have the same problem.
The solution is to expand the Treaty, and allow some balancing. That was done with the Naval Disarmament Treaties in the 1920's and 30's, where all were limited, but not all limits were exactly the same to accomodate balancing off, and it is again the answer here.
Second, the Russians are still deeply offended by the US unilaterally abandoning an arms control treaty that they find threatening, more so because we are pushing exactly those previously-banned weapons right up to the Russian border. We have some concerns about Iran and N Korea that cause us to act, but we do it in ways that the Russians (correctly) see as threatening even though we deny that.
We can't walk away from some when we think circumstances have changed, then expect they won't walk away from others when circumstances change around them.
Putin has cited this concern as an independent reason to walk out of a treaty we want -- we walk out of what he wanted to keep, and so he walks out of one we wanted to keep. That is how diplomacy works, always has been. Tit-for-tat is the basic method.
This Editorial ought to have addressed these concerns, not just repeated the current US position without explanation or discussion.
99
The US publicly announced it was withdrawing from the ABM treaty 6 months in advance, following the rules of the treaty itself.
By contrast, Russia has not announced withdrawal from the INF. By initiating INF-prohibited missile development, yet not withdrawing from the INF treaty, Russia is acting dishonestly. Naturally, this breeds suspicion among other countries as to Russia's true motives.
By contrast, Russia has not announced withdrawal from the INF. By initiating INF-prohibited missile development, yet not withdrawing from the INF treaty, Russia is acting dishonestly. Naturally, this breeds suspicion among other countries as to Russia's true motives.
11
Further to Mark Thomason's comment, I do not know of any act since WWII, in the annals of relations between major nations, in terms of hypocrisy, condescension, and arrogance, that matches the United States' abrogation of the ABM treaty. Adding a back-hand across their face to the smack-down, it was preceded by not really secret development of ABMs, and methodical in-your-face construction of ABM sites. Not in North Dakota but, my my, in Poland.
Criticizing Russia for "violating" nuclear weapon treaties is showmanship in the marching out with another condescending justification for arrogance.
Criticizing Russia for "violating" nuclear weapon treaties is showmanship in the marching out with another condescending justification for arrogance.
30
You are trying to equate our open and transparent withdrawal from the ABM-- as allowed under the treaty itself with the proper 6 months notice-- with Russia's clandestine violations of other treaties. If Russia really feels it needs these capabilities then it should do the honorable thing and openly withdraw from them rather than insult us with their denials. Their skulking behavior leads me to believe that they still see the west as their primary threat. I say it's time to declare the Russians in violation of the treaties concerned and give notice of our own withdrawals and start developing systems which really would be a threat to them in any future conflict: if Putin wants to reconstitute the good old USSR then maybe it's time we started treating them accordingly.
2
Next to climate control, this is it,
Life threatening nuclear bit,
That treaty preserved,
Survival deserved,
No such treaty we can't permit!
Life threatening nuclear bit,
That treaty preserved,
Survival deserved,
No such treaty we can't permit!
5
The prejudice against Russia shown by the New York Times editorial board is repeatedly shocking. The idea seems to be that the United States can repeatedly attack Russian interests and there can be no response from Russia because any response will mean more attacks. Ringing Russia with NATO-United States missiles is no problem unless Russia reacts, and then Russia must be further punished for reacting.
The Times has already explained that President Obama is going to be spending hundreds of billions of dollars on the nuclear arsenal of the United States, but the problem as always is Russia.
Why is the Times intent on re-creating the Cold War?
The Times has already explained that President Obama is going to be spending hundreds of billions of dollars on the nuclear arsenal of the United States, but the problem as always is Russia.
Why is the Times intent on re-creating the Cold War?
71
Actually it is Putin's actions that threaten to spark a re-creation of the Cold War, if it has not started already.
The recent crash in oil prices might place a welcome brake on his dictatorial ambitions, but its certainly not to be counted on.
The recent crash in oil prices might place a welcome brake on his dictatorial ambitions, but its certainly not to be counted on.
7
It is even worse than that. The US is trying to convince the Russians that we can wipe them out, so they better mind their manners. If Washington succeeds in scaring them enough the reasonable thing for them to do would be to strike first before the US can finish implementing their stranglehold. I find it discouraging that the Times is pushing for a nuclear exchange.
19
Or, perhaps he decides to externalize the problem, and increase the aggression in the Ukraine, Georgia, Uzbekistan Kazakhstan, or even in some of the Former Soviet satellites like Latvia or Estonia.
1
Shouldn't we do something about it? Empty talk doesn't get us anywhere. After all, Russians seem to be completely unfazed when they're told about the violations of the treaties they're supposed to uphold.