November 23rd, 2011
05:06 PM ET

New roadblock in 'reset' with Russia

By Jill Dougherty and Jamie Crawford

It feels like a blast from the past: Russian President Dmitry Medvedev threatening to station short-range missiles in Kaliningrad, the Russian enclave on the Baltic Sea between Lithuania and Poland.

Medvedev is miffed that the West is not taking Russia's concerns into consideration as it proceeds with plans to deploy a missile defense system in Europe that the United States and NATO insist is to protect from potential missile attack from Iran.

They even say they want Russia to work with them on the system but, in a live television broadcast, Medvedev told Russians: "We will not agree to take part in a program that, in a short while, in some six to eight years' time, could weaken our nuclear deterrent capability."

Russia, the president announced somberly, could deploy weapons "ensuring our ability to take out any part of the U.S. missile defense system in Europe. One step in this process will be to deploy Iskander missiles in Kaliningrad Region."

And he went a step further, threatening to pull out of the New START arms control agreement, which he and President Barack Obama signed with such fanfare just a year and a half ago.

Medvedev's comments drew a sigh of frustration from the White House, the State Department and NATO.

"We've been clear, all along, for many years now, that this system is NOT directed against Russia," Mark Toner, State Department Deputy spokesman insisted.

The National Security Council's spokesman, Tommy Vietor, issued a statement saying "Implementation of the New START Treaty is going well and we see no basis for threats to withdraw from it."

NATO's secretary general bemoaned the Russian president's announcement, calling it "deeply disappointing" and referring to "old suspicions."

Medvedev wants a legal guarantee from the Obama administration that the system is not aimed at Russia but the Obama administration has made it clear that won't fly. Even it Obama took that step, the Senate would be unlikely to ratify it. So the administration says the Russian president's threat won't succeed in forcing Washington to change its plans to deploy the missile defense program.

Medvedev still calls Barack Obama a "partner" but his tough words throw that partnership - and the administration's famous "reset" with Russia - into doubt. It also comes at a time when Obama has never needed Russia's help more, on challenges including Iran, Syria, North Korea and Afghanistan.

So why is Medvedev rocking the boat now? Steven Pifer, former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine and arms control expert, points to politics - in Russia.

"I think you have to look at the context," he says. "It seems to me this is not aimed at NATO, this is aimed at the Russian domestic audience with a view to the parliamentary elections there in seven days time. Just as in America beating up on Russia is always good in politics, in Russia taking a hard line against the U.S. and NATO always plays very well with the electorate."

Moscow, Pifer thinks, would never consider actually pulling out of the New START agreement. It's important to them, he says, because they are retiring a lot of old missiles and START "is their vehicle to ensure that U.S. forces come down at the same time."

Ironically, if Russia could get beyond the demand for a legal guarantee on the missile defense system, "there is a fairly open path to NATO-Russia missile defense cooperation" which could give Russia a voice in how to shape the architecture of missile defense, Pifer says.

Medvedev is in the last months of his presidency. In March of next year Russians will go to the polls to elect a new president, and the leading candidate is Vladimir Putin, known for taking a harder line than Medvedev.

Could this mean even more trouble for the "reset?"

Pifer says, "I think you'll get the same strategic line from the Russians, though Putin is perhaps a bit more suspicious...more skeptical about U.S. intentions then Medvedev is, so there will be perhaps that change in tone."

The reset may not be over but it could be headed for some stormy weather.


Filed under: Russia • Security Clearance on TV
soundoff (319 Responses)
  1. MMM

    Kenny,

    I understand you are Rambo behind your computer. Did you get your orgams yet after writing your poems on this board?

    November 24, 2011 at 3:03 am | Reply
  2. MMM

    Kenny,

    But the world is different from your computer and video games. This is why nobody buys your crap.

    November 24, 2011 at 3:01 am | Reply
  3. Gregory

    When you can't balance a budget you have NO business funding toys that we can't pay for. Balance the budget and THEN America can have the big fireworks to play with. If these weapons are important we owe it to EVERYONE involved to balance the damn budget FIRST. If it's not important then let someone else that is capable of being responsible take the lead.

    November 24, 2011 at 3:00 am | Reply
  4. MMM

    Kenny,

    Why don't you go and eat Turkey now? You are tired. You need more colories.

    November 24, 2011 at 2:59 am | Reply
  5. MMM

    Ken,

    Are you still alive? When will you stop consuming oxygen?

    November 24, 2011 at 2:58 am | Reply
  6. MMM

    Jehsea,

    You just proved one thing. You do not have your own opinion. Kenny lies, his posts are false and you agree with them. Therefore, you are both degenerates.

    November 24, 2011 at 2:55 am | Reply
  7. MMM

    Jehsea,

    I totally agree you with you. I love reading his messages too. Why? So false. They are meant for idiots who do not know the truth. Happy holidays.

    November 24, 2011 at 2:51 am | Reply
  8. FACTS

    Ok, think of this. As U.S you have invaded Iraq and Afghanistan because you they were carrying a threat for you. If any nation makes a threat to the U.S, they will get invaded. <This is the type of thinking that made US look like an absolute Warmonger to All of the world. If U.S strikes another country claiming this, they will get backlashes. If you cant see this, you are clearly ignorant. Iran, even though they might posses a threat of Nuclear power. They do not carry a threat to U.S at all. Even if Iran has Nuclear power they will not use it Offensively but US made decision on attacking iran because they pose a "threat" to the Israelis *Not US*. Will be the down fall.

    US still has trouble with Afghanistan and Iraq.......given they were third-world countries.....Russia and/or Iran will be A LOT worse. for our troops and Our diminishing reputation.

    November 24, 2011 at 2:51 am | Reply
    • Ken

      Troops in a conventional force on force conflict is a thing of the past when it comes to the US military. Troops are only a piece of the pie for occupations in today's military.

      November 24, 2011 at 2:57 am | Reply
      • FACTS

        So, if we have missiles, they have missiles. If we have drones. they have drones. If we have nukes, they have nukes. Be certain of that and make your research foolproof.
        How do you plan to invade or wage a war against a country if your not going to land any troops in to make sure? Are you going to nuke the place? Or bomb the military bases? then what? You need to get marines in there. and when you do, Iran's military power are 10x the ones we have faced in Afghanistan and Iraq combined. So you need a lot more troops. And yu cant nuke the place like hiroshima because CHINA and RUSSIA will nuke us. Its a lot more complicated than a simple win my friend

        November 24, 2011 at 3:03 am |
      • Ken

        The US is quite capable of invading Iran, though personally I don't like the idea. Your forgetting that if we are specifically talking about destroying military hardware IE nuclear materials, then no troops on the ground are not needed, However if the powers at be were to decide that a ground invasion was a viable, and preferable option in the end then yes, the US is capable of completely, and overwhelmingly destroying any military resistance. You imply issues with Afghanistan, and Iraq as evidence indicating it would be a costly campaign in terms of military casualties on the part of the US. Both occupations have been ugly, very much so. However the key is in the details. The occupations... have been difficult. The initial invasions however, were actually from a strategic standpoint in both cases complete successes with very little casualties sustained by the US. Its in the occupation that the US seems to have issues... The rebuilding, and occupation, not the invasion. I am only citing from a military point of view that an invasion is unlikely, yet feasible if found to be required.

        Again however, once an invasion turns into an occupation... Well all these politicians get involved, and the ROE gets pretty extreme, and well thats the flaw of the US... We just aren't good at sustained occupations...

        November 24, 2011 at 3:26 am |
      • Ken

        Side note please excuse the spelling, and grammar in that last post as I'm not as awake as my earlier posts. Bedtime for this guy. πŸ™‚ Happy holidays

        November 24, 2011 at 3:28 am |
      • Ken

        Before i rack out, I feel the need to caveat. No nukes are required dealing with Iran. If such a situation did arise however, well I wont say that China, and Russia definatley wouldnt fire a nuke at US intrests, however I personally seriously doubt that response. China's economy is based on US consumers in large, and Russia does quite a bit of business with the US as well behind the scenes. From a military standpoint, a nuclear strike on the US is mutually assured destruction for any, and all parties involved. Yes, Russia does on paper possess more nuclear ICBM's then the US, however both Russia, and the US possess enough Nuclear firepower to destroy the world dozens of times over. In a china-russia-us nuclear conflict all three participants will face mutual total destruction. The US would lob enough nukes at both countries to annihilate everything, and both Russia, and China would do the same to the US. No win scenario. Personally I think cooler heads would in fact prevail if Iran got nuked.

        That entire scenario however in my opinion is extremely unlikely for several reasons. The first obvious one being that if the US were to nuke Iran, and avoid nuclear retaliation it would still be extremely detrimental to our reputation to the world, and would likely result in a huge degradation of all of its foreign affairs to include economics. Secondly Israel is an extremely capable nation militarily as far as that region of the world is concerned. In my opinion if anyone ends up in a military conflict with Iran its likely to be Israel being the front runner. That is a matter of opinion however, but since WW2 and Israel's birth as a nation it has repeatedly proven its military prowess, even when faced with multiple, and separate military's opposing it.

        Goodnight all, its been a good topic to discuss tonight. Happy holidays to all the readers. πŸ™‚

        November 24, 2011 at 3:47 am |
      • Shawn Irwin

        There is a limit to how much China and Russia will put up with, and the US has been overstepping the bounds for a long time. The US does not have a mandate when it comes to international affairs, and has not had a mandate for a long time. In other words, the US has been breaking international laws. The UN was designed for dealing with international issues, and acting unilaterally looks very much like imperialism, and in many cases IS imperialism. I do not think that attacking Iran would accomplish a thing, and, I do not think that China or Russia would tolerate it.

        November 24, 2011 at 4:38 am |
  9. MMM

    Frank,

    I'll tell you one thing. There is nothing America can do against Iskander missiles.

    November 24, 2011 at 2:49 am | Reply
  10. Jehsea

    @Ken – I have to note that I find your posts a pleasure to read, as they are intelligent, informative,logical and cohesive and obviously well researched and thought-out. Your background and education are excellent. Happy Holidays, and if you are a service member, thank you – and any other military readers – for your service.

    November 24, 2011 at 2:49 am | Reply
    • Ken

      Much thanks, and I am actually a service member the specifics of which I will avoid discussing on this forum. Happy holidays to you as well, and I appreciate the kind words. Godspeed πŸ™‚

      November 24, 2011 at 3:00 am | Reply
  11. MMM

    Frank,

    What exactly did Russia steal from US?

    November 24, 2011 at 2:47 am | Reply
  12. MMM

    Ken,

    I do not want to argue with you. You are lost. You are blind. More importanly, you are just stupid and retarded. THis is the fact. Go to sleep. Stop searching for porn. It is time for you to hit the bed.

    November 24, 2011 at 2:45 am | Reply
    • Ken

      I'll sleep well thank you. When I wake, rest assure Red Dawn will still only exist as a movie, and your dillusions of tinker toys destroying the US Navy will still be just a dream in Moscow. But hey, I hear there's an abundance of Vodka, yes comrade? Goodnight from the states. πŸ™‚

      November 24, 2011 at 2:55 am | Reply
  13. MMM

    Ken,

    There is nothing wrong with Topol-M missiles. They can always push american back.

    November 24, 2011 at 2:43 am | Reply
  14. MMM

    Kenny,

    When or if you wake up tomorrow, please read about Bulava or Sineva navy missiles that Russia has for American navy. These missiles can do a lot of damage and destruction. 941 Akula submarines always wait for American navy.

    November 24, 2011 at 2:42 am | Reply
  15. MMM

    Ken,

    Tell your most powerful navy to enter Barets Sea. I doubt it will happen but if it does, I would like to watch with you what will happen.

    November 24, 2011 at 2:39 am | Reply
    • Ken

      See your mistakenly of the assumption that the US Navy would need to enter Russian waters to engage in combat. However, again your information is wrong and I'm obviously not going to change your mind. Nor do I have the need to do so. This little debate is getting a little tacky for my tastes however as I typically opt to debate with individuals who display a higher degree of intellectual capacity for the debate to begin with. Its been fun though my Russian "Friend".

      November 24, 2011 at 2:43 am | Reply
  16. MMM

    Kenny,

    See, you are wrong again. I am not a patriot. I just hate imperialistic warmongers like you. That's all. And this is the fact.

    November 24, 2011 at 2:38 am | Reply
  17. MMM

    Ken,

    You are still here and you will miss Black Friday. But here is the fact. All Russia needs is about 50 Topol-M missiles to make your life a little worse.

    November 24, 2011 at 2:36 am | Reply
    • Ken

      You obviously are misinformed in the idea that a nuclear war with the US is a good idea... Topol-M missiles would be a poor decision to resort to given the nuclear chaos resulting.

      November 24, 2011 at 2:39 am | Reply
  18. MMM

    Ken

    I disagree, and I am quite certain Russian military leaders would do the same.

    Kenny,

    The Russian government could care less if you disagree or not. They do not even care if you exist or not. If you die tomorrow the world will not care.

    November 24, 2011 at 2:34 am | Reply
    • Ken

      Well, I suppose its nice to know that my nation commands the most advanced, and capable navy in the world. Far superior to that of Russia's...

      November 24, 2011 at 2:36 am | Reply
  19. MMM

    Kenny,

    And when you'll be done with your fat burger, I hope you do not choke on it, you will also may be read about KASHTAN that Russia has to sink American ships.

    November 24, 2011 at 2:32 am | Reply
  20. MMM

    Ken,

    When you done with Black Friday shopping, do yourself one favor. First enjoy burger. Second, read this. Russian Typhoon class submarines will destroy American garbage.

    November 24, 2011 at 2:30 am | Reply
    • Ken

      Your patriotism is commendable, but facts are false.

      November 24, 2011 at 2:34 am | Reply
  21. MMM

    Ken,

    S-400 will not be targeted? You know why? Because American planes won't even make close to Russia. Go and search why.

    November 24, 2011 at 2:28 am | Reply
    • Ken

      I disagree, and I am quite certain Russian military leaders would do the same.

      November 24, 2011 at 2:32 am | Reply
  22. MMM

    Frank,

    Russian T-50 will fuk over F-18.

    November 24, 2011 at 2:26 am | Reply
  23. MMM

    Frank,

    America is such a sweetheart that never invaded anyone. I know how mad you are that America never invaded anyone.

    November 24, 2011 at 2:25 am | Reply
    • Frank

      strange dude man

      November 24, 2011 at 2:38 am | Reply
  24. MMM

    Frank,

    MIG-35 or SU-37 will take on any american garbage. This is the fact. I know it is hard for you to swallow the truth.

    November 24, 2011 at 2:23 am | Reply
    • Ken

      MMM, I think you are not quite up to date with what specific capabilities the US Navy commands. I understand your national pride, but the statements your making are just simply not factual.

      November 24, 2011 at 2:27 am | Reply
    • Frank

      If Russia is militarily superior to the US, as you're implying, then why is your government constantly trying to steal military secrets from the US? You guys aren't innovative. To make up for your shortcomings, you steal.

      November 24, 2011 at 2:34 am | Reply
  25. Timetraveler

    Awwww..... that's so cute! Russia threatening NATO! It makes me nostalgic for the good old days. Thanks, Russia... for the memories.

    November 24, 2011 at 2:23 am | Reply
  26. MMM

    The bottom line is SS-21 and SS-26 can be just what they were developed for to penetrate American Missile Defense Systems. Russia should use multiple warheads on one missile.

    November 24, 2011 at 2:21 am | Reply
  27. MMM

    Frank,

    Are you spreading lies again? I thought you do not like to lie. Here is the fact. Russian Federation never invaded Georgia. Russian Federation defended Abhazia and Ossetia against Georgia. Get the facts straight.

    Also, you said you believe the shield is against Iran. How can you prove it?

    November 24, 2011 at 2:18 am | Reply
  28. MMM

    Shawn,

    I'll call it now. WW3 teams: Russia, China, Iran, North Korea, Venezuela, Afghanistan (Hell, Al Qaeda's former #2 and now #1 is a KGB trained operative..read up on it), Pakistan VS. USA, Europe, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Australia?

    Who are you kidding? What happened? are you lying again? It was CIA not KGB that trained both former # 1 and now #2. Next time, even if it is holiday, please try to write the truth.

    November 24, 2011 at 2:14 am | Reply
  29. Mike

    To make Russia relatively harmless, and to use America to neutralize the world, may very well also be the wider plan for this move to station this shield, in spite of the dire economic situation in the U.S. and Europe-among the average citizen. Without a check and balance in the world-anything can be done, any information manipulated and all the wealth much more likely to be controlled. At this time, many countries are trying to foist internatational "Universal Cards" -(such as in Russia), and "Citizen Cards" in Greece where a card chip will contain all the info as well as the ability to pay and buy. This move then by NATO very well has nothing to do with help for people, but merely complete control-no matter how the information is given on the news.

    November 24, 2011 at 2:12 am | Reply
  30. Frank

    I believe the missile defense shield we are planning on intstalling in Europe is a good thing. I think the European countries protected by this shield should foot most of the bill because maintaining such a system would be expensive and they want it.

    After doing some research on this, I can understand the Russian position. The US and Western European nations are claiming the missile shield is meant to intercept Iranian missiles, which is probably its true intention. However, our allies in Eastern Europe have said they aren't concerned about Iran because they doubt Iran has or could ever develop ICBM capability. They have different motives for wanting this missile shield. So why do East European countries want this shield? They are worried about the revival of Russia's old oppressive imperialistic ways and probably plan on using it as a deterrent as the Russian government has repetitively violated the sovereignty of it's neighbors. After Russia invaded Georgia, many East European countries are becoming even more concerned about their safety.

    November 24, 2011 at 2:11 am | Reply
    • Mike

      Russia did not invade Georgia, part of that country has never been unified with Georgia and does not want to be. Russian troops are station there and it is documented that they were hit by Georgian troops. Besides which, this land, I believe, has never been part of Georgia, but was given to the Oblast in the USSR by Stalin who was Georgian by race. These kind of conflicts between Russia and Ukraine and Georgia-all feed into the general cause to keep Russia as weak as possible. And again, without Russia, there is no real check on the ambitions of the U.S. Euro technocrats-who are not serving their people's interest.

      November 24, 2011 at 2:17 am | Reply
      • Frank

        Russia invaded and took over South Ossetia, which was Georgian territory. They invaded in 2008, remember?

        November 24, 2011 at 2:20 am |
  31. MMM

    You most Americans are so naive and ignorant. You still live under illusion that US will win in conventional war against Russian. Here is one bad news. And this is only one so far. Russian S-400 will simply take out and shoot down every American plain. I am sorry if I dissapoint you during the holiday. I promisse I will not do it again.

    November 24, 2011 at 2:09 am | Reply
    • Frank

      You Russian are still flying MIGs, which are cold war era planes! I have a reference book on aircraft. Our new F18s are faster than sound!!!

      November 24, 2011 at 2:18 am | Reply
    • Ken

      I'm sorry to inform you, but that is simply not the case. To put it bluntly the US not only could actually win in a conventional conflict with Russia, but would in an astoundingly one sided manner. In fact the S-400 is an impressive system by Russia standards, however those units would likely be amoungst the first targeted in a conflict. To caveat, the US AF, and US Navy are leaps and bounds beyond anything militarily in regards to technological capability, and destructive potential.

      November 24, 2011 at 2:21 am | Reply
    • Frank

      not at all man, in fact you're making me laugh.

      November 24, 2011 at 2:45 am | Reply
  32. Jehsea

    @America Rocks,@ the Truth, @ a LOT of posters, the IGNORANCE on this page is terrifying. First of all, it is not the "USSR" it is RUSSIA. And it is to be taken quite seriously as Russia is *still* the only country on Earth with the nuclear capability to annhilate the U.S. in the blink of an eye, with a mere command. This must never be forgotten. The Cold War is not "over" and never will be; it is a bear in hibernation. People must understand that the fruits of the Manhattan Project changed the world irrevocably, FOREVER. The "missile shield" defense system idea is not new. This has been in the works since the late 70s, and is necessary, growing moreso each day as the globe sprouts more and more members of the "Nuclear Club," – MANY of whom are nation-states with governments either in a volatile state of flux OR led by despots and tyrants who fail to think and behave as what is commonly known in the foreign policy / national security – political science world as "Rational Actors." This is self-explanatory: can the leader perform critical thinking and logical analysis of costs and risks vs. gains / losses for all sides in a proposed given military act? For countries like Iran, N. Korea, etc. the answer is NO. When such a leader, with missile(s) pointed at Europe, Russia (on the same continent) or the U.S., you will hope the shield is in place to deflect the missile. Even THAT is problematic.

    November 24, 2011 at 1:44 am | Reply
    • Ken

      I am not going to going to agree in total with everything here, or disagree. What I am going to say is I do see the rational in your logic, and will say its well thought out as well as nicely articulated.

      November 24, 2011 at 1:48 am | Reply
    • sauerkike39

      if iran doesn't get nukes who will keeo jew vermin i ncheck? jew ridden kikeSA govt? pls.

      November 24, 2011 at 1:57 am | Reply
      • Ken

        Really?

        November 24, 2011 at 1:59 am |
    • Mike

      I've lived in Russia for 8 years now. Nobody wants war. If America fell apart and fragmented and say in S.C. they put up a shield of weopons, probably the North would be alarmed. Same thing here, ringing the nation here with this 'defense system' is likely to push people to alarm here and anti-american feelings-not to the American people, but to the American Euro technocrats.

      November 24, 2011 at 1:59 am | Reply
      • Ken

        Very understandable, and I completely agree Mike.

        November 24, 2011 at 2:01 am |
    • FACTS

      Ok, think of this. As U.S you have invaded Iraq and Afghanistan because you they were carrying a threat for you. If any nation makes a threat to the U.S, they will get invaded. <This is the type of thinking that made US look like an absolute Warmonger to All of the world. If U.S strikes another country claiming this, they will get backlashes. If you cant see this, you are clearly ignorant. Iran, even though they might posses a threat of Nuclear power. They do not carry a threat to U.S at all. Even if Iran has Nuclear power they will not use it Offensively but US made decision on attacking iran because they pose a "threat" to the Israelis *Not US*. Will be the down fall.

      US still has trouble with Afghanistan and Iraq.......given they were third-world countries.....Russia and/or Iran will be A LOT worse. for our troops and Our diminishing reputation.

      November 24, 2011 at 2:47 am | Reply
  33. Coach Lew

    I goofed and spelled missiles "missles". Sorry.

    November 24, 2011 at 1:44 am | Reply
  34. Coach Lew

    Hell leave it to the U.S. that can't even agree as to how to truly balance an out of control budget to come up with a statement like "we can't guarantee our missles won't be pointed at Russia". For God's sake, what is wrong with us?

    November 24, 2011 at 1:41 am | Reply
  35. RCDC

    I will just leave this to Mr Obama. And I pray he will make the right decision.

    November 24, 2011 at 1:39 am | Reply
  36. Shawn

    Oh and of course India on the side of the USA, China and India hate each other.

    November 24, 2011 at 1:29 am | Reply
    • Ken

      ...Forgetting Pakistan and India relations?

      November 24, 2011 at 1:38 am | Reply
  37. Shawn

    I love how people think the "official" numbers on nuclear armaments are anywhere close to the actual numbers. Please rest assured that both the US and Russia still have enough missiles/bombs/etc. to blanket not only military and command & control targets, but also major and minor population centers. In addition, we are humans, a very ugly race when faced with survival, so the conditions for those left after a true nuclear war would be a truly Darwinian test of survival of the fittest.

    Just remember, give it 48-72 hours before you go outside.

    I'll call it now. WW3 teams: Russia, China, Iran, North Korea, Venezuela, Afghanistan (Hell, Al Qaeda's former #2 and now #1 is a KGB trained operative..read up on it), Pakistan VS. USA, Europe, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Australia

    November 24, 2011 at 1:27 am | Reply
    • Ken

      I tend to disagree with the WW3 prediction. None of the major players want any part of a real military conflict with the US. Its a losing fight on the oppositions side, and their more then well aware of it.

      November 24, 2011 at 1:33 am | Reply
      • Ed

        You are forgetting the ultimate suicidal nut job religious leaders.

        November 24, 2011 at 1:48 am |
  38. Ken

    garp0813: Vietnam was a war in which the US was focused on a ground occupation, a take and hold oriented scheme. A conventional conflict between Russia, and the US would be quite different. Rather then a defensive occupation of half of an Asiatic country hindered by political cry babies this subject involves two large offensively capable, and structured military powers. There would likely be no large ground invasion by either side, rather it would be a race by both sides to eradicate each others offensive military capabilities thus creating a situation wherein one side has offensive capability while the other has too little, or no capability to effectively respond creating the necessitous need for conditional surrender by the losing side, or taking it to an unconventional level which almost certainly ends poorly for both sides, and third parties.
    In such a conflict the US is more then vastly better equipped to handle a force on force conflict then Russia, or any other nation or alliance for that matter. The US Navy alone is by its self and alone the most powerful military force on the face of the earth with absolutely no conventional competition even remotely comparable. The outcome of such a conflict is despite what many may think vastly one sided to put it lightly.

    -However, on a moral, and political standpoint I would agree that the idea of the US placing these sites in Russia's backyard is rather cocky on our part. It would not set well with the US if the tables were turned, and it was Russia trying to place the same units in our backyard. Bay of pigs anyone?

    November 24, 2011 at 1:22 am | Reply
  39. Lliam

    Russia, as the USA must and will always protect themselves. With the current state of affairs within the US Administration go ahead and target whatever you want. Having lived as a third grader at a SAC base with three Atlas missile silos close by we too were targeted during the cold war. So what?

    November 24, 2011 at 1:21 am | Reply
  40. Amazed American

    no western power is in danger from iran; bombing is done from the air or orbiting platforms. Sounds like a way to keep some defense companies operating in the least cost effective form using obsolete technology

    November 24, 2011 at 1:20 am | Reply
  41. Mike

    If Russia put a shield to take out weopons on Cuban soil, for international protection so called, or on Mexico or anywhere else around America, would the American people be ok with that?

    November 24, 2011 at 1:14 am | Reply
    • Ken

      No.

      November 24, 2011 at 1:21 am | Reply
      • Mike

        That's right, and Russians are not interested in conflict, but you can't deceive completely the people in Russia by surrounding them from Poland to Turkey with weopons and telling them that it is for something that has nothing to do with Russia.

        November 24, 2011 at 1:24 am |
  42. Hope

    Russia is not our friend, and they are in bed with Iran

    November 24, 2011 at 1:06 am | Reply
    • Mike

      Russian people have no interest in war, clearly knowing firsthand in WWII what that means. Nor do the Americans who have traditionally wanted to stay to themselves. This is the result of American and Euro technocrats and their desire to push the world to crisis.

      November 24, 2011 at 1:29 am | Reply
  43. Karen

    Recipe on how to make people forget about financial, healthcare and employment crisis? Draw a gun!

    November 24, 2011 at 12:55 am | Reply
  44. PPeter

    US needs to get tougher with Russia, especially with Putin starting next year. Compared to Soviet Union, Russia is just a shadow so they should not be acting so cocky.

    November 24, 2011 at 12:44 am | Reply
    • mickey1313

      Agreed, we need to stop all export and import to russa, see how they like the strongest economy stone wallining them. We should have taken Patents advice and gone on to russa after we slaughtered germany and italy.

      November 24, 2011 at 12:54 am | Reply
      • Ken

        I'm going to disagree here. It would not suit the American interest to commit to something like that. First of all, that would likely be construed as a prelude to war, and quite plausibly even an act of war. Not only that, but secondly the US does more business with Russia then obviously apparent. Example, did you know that Russia is in all sensible terms IE not including the small nickle and dime players, pretty much the sole world resource of Titanium?

        November 24, 2011 at 2:05 am |
      • PassingBy

        "We should have taken Patents advice and gone on to russa after we slaughtered germany and italy." LOL! Mickey1313
        Dude, why don't you learn English and history before you get yourself involved into ANY kind of big-boy discussion. It's "Patton's advice" not "Patents", and the country is called "Russia" with capital letter R, look it up on Wikipedia next time. Btw, there was no Russia in April of 1945 but the Soviet Union and it was the Soviet Union who "slaughtered germany", not "we". Your country entered the fight only in June of 1944, when Soviet Army was rapidly heading westward, smashing to pieces the most advanced military machine the world has ever known. So, if "we" followed "Patents" advise and "gone on to russa", "your" and his behind would have been kicked all the way to English Channel by advancing Soviet troops. Soviets were REAL soldiers, just like Germans and it was a fight between equals. Anglo-Saxon swine wouldn't stand a chance, should it have come to a direct conflict. What the Westerns Allies were good for was war-profiteering, firebombing defenseless cities and wiping out civilian populations with nuclear weapons-that's why Russians have every reason to react the way it does, knowing perfectly well what "humane" Anglo-Saxon "democracies" are capable of. Russia is not going to be intimidated or fooled by no one, so stick to "cold" war rhetoric and leave the "hot" one for real men, my intellectually-challenged friend.

        November 24, 2011 at 2:38 am |
  45. Maltese Falcon

    The US missiles in Poland are really supposed to protect the US Navy in the Indian Ocean from Russian missiles fired in response to a US attack on Iran or purhaps Pakistan.

    November 24, 2011 at 12:38 am | Reply
  46. Robyn Harris

    Morons in the Kremlin.
    Morons in the White House.
    With no understanding or even vague comprehension of the doomsday toy they are playing with.
    Throwing trillions of dollars and rubles away on weapons systems that serve no purpose and could never work.
    Even if you postulate a miracle and assume they could work, it would mean the end of the human species.
    This is the insanity of the last three generations of life on Earth.

    November 24, 2011 at 12:33 am | Reply
    • VLAD

      100 % agree

      November 24, 2011 at 1:00 am | Reply
  47. Flipider.com

    Who sold military technology to Germany, Italy, Afghanistan, Irac, Vietnam, North Korea, Japan and nuclear bombs to Russia. and have them pointed back at us. I believe it was the United States that did so.

    November 24, 2011 at 12:29 am | Reply
    • Ken

      That statement is false. The Russians developed their nuclear capability through their own program, however soviet spies provided substantial data stolen from the US program on development of their first implosion type nuclear device code named "first lightning" which was detonated on august 29th, 1949.

      November 24, 2011 at 12:35 am | Reply
      • Flipider.com

        I never trusted the good cop / bad cop routine between Russia and the USA. Watch the movie The Adventures of Baron Munchausen.

        November 24, 2011 at 12:43 am |
    • Flipider.com

      Don't forget what we helped China become into. aaa superpower?

      November 24, 2011 at 12:36 am | Reply
      • Ken

        Regarding the China superpower statement, you wont find an argument here. Though the political scheme is sketchy at times, the two nations are very much intertwined in economics. Its been a short term boost to the US, with a long term underlying setback which is starting to rear its ugly head over the past decade.

        November 24, 2011 at 12:49 am |
  48. Miiro Bels

    Men Russia should concentrate on its economy, that's the problem with armatures when they get small stolen tech they want to sample it on others ie. china scaring its neighbors. that's y we need the USA to have unrivaled force that can clear these fools in seconds without retaliation coz they support terrorists countries like Iran,Syria etc

    November 24, 2011 at 12:16 am | Reply
  49. Facepalm

    USA: Russia, lets be friends!
    Russia: Sure! Uh... why are you pointing a gun at me?
    USA: Oh, it's just for defense.
    Russia: Didn't you say we are friends?
    USA: Oh, we totally are.
    Russia: You still have a gun on me.
    USA: I do? Oh, so sorry.
    Russia: You wanna put it down?
    USA: No, not really.
    Russia: Okay, I'll just pull out my own gun...
    USA: AGRESSORS! VILLAINS! HOW DARE YOU BETRAY OUR FRIENDSHIP LIKE THAT?

    November 24, 2011 at 12:05 am | Reply
    • Definition of Moron

      Facepalm.

      November 24, 2011 at 12:27 am | Reply
    • mickey1313

      we should have never ended the cold war, we should never have let these fools re-build.

      November 24, 2011 at 12:57 am | Reply
      • steve harnack

        Are you drunk? Whatever it is that you are taking, you need to quit!

        November 24, 2011 at 1:21 am |
    • Maria

      Absolutely agree!

      November 24, 2011 at 2:35 am | Reply
  50. Boris

    What do you do when you see the flash?

    November 24, 2011 at 12:03 am | Reply
    • yahmez

      Duck and cover.

      November 24, 2011 at 1:16 am | Reply
  51. Carlos

    The U.S., claiming that this missile defense shield is to just counter Iran makes not sense at all. As you wisely posted, Iran doesn't have the technology to launch missiles capable to reach any U.S. state or territories. What I see here is the following: Russia has a lot of resources [you name it, oil, natural gas, wood, all kind of metals, uranium, etc.] and also has the problem of a population decline, CIA World Factbook 2012 [which I purchased at Amazon.com] says that by mid-2011 Russian population was 138.7 mill. In 25 years from now it will decline to 108.0 mill and will keep falling. The U.S. might be getting ready to move on provoking Russia into war so they can invade it and...guess what? take over Russia's natural resources. The future wars will be fought looking to control energy resources. Why did we invade Iraq in 2003 knowing it did not have WMD? huh?

    November 23, 2011 at 11:59 pm | Reply
    • Ken

      I tend to disagree with that theory. The US has nothing to gain by invading Russia. We if need, be have enough natural resources in our own territory. Also from a military mindset a ground invasion of Russia would likely have a poor outcome. The likelihood of a nuclear response during a ground invasion on Russia is not just probable, but definite. Though the US military is superior, a full scale invasion of Russia is a whole separate beast then destroying the conventional offensive capability of its military.

      November 24, 2011 at 12:08 am | Reply
      • Ken

        we*

        November 24, 2011 at 12:11 am |
      • Carlos

        Ken,

        I love debating with you. You're one of the very few here that really make sense on your posts and one who's way well informed of the world current affairs. Happy Thanksgiving and take care.

        November 24, 2011 at 12:22 am |
      • Ken

        Carlos, I agree its an interesting topic for sure. I appreciate your input on the subject, and am impressed by the way you articulate your views, and thoughts on the subject. I hope you have a happy thanksgiving yourself, and keep the posts coming. Godspeed. πŸ™‚

        November 24, 2011 at 12:40 am |
      • D-DON

        Is there really superiority in the face of nuclear race? I doubt it and that is why the two super nuclear powers need to talk but not threaten each other. US championing the defense of Europe more than the Europeans, I guess that leave room for suspicion.

        November 24, 2011 at 12:57 am |
      • Ken

        D-DON: Valid point of view I must say. Wisely put.

        November 24, 2011 at 1:20 am |
    • Definition of Moron

      Carlos.

      November 24, 2011 at 12:28 am | Reply
      • Carlos

        Thanks for you kind words. I can see when you have no arguments to prove your points you have to resort on insults. Nice put. That reveals what kind of person you are, more likely a white trailer trash. Take care and Happy Thanksgiving to U 2.

        November 24, 2011 at 12:32 am |
      • Russian Resources

        Carlos...

        Your Russian resources argument is as illogical as you taking anything on a blog personally. Please explain how any power is going to invade Russia and defeat them and take control of their resources. Do you know large Russia is? Do you know that America/NATO would risk nuclear war for doing this?

        Nothing you wrote makes sense. Oh, and Happy Thanksgiving to you as well. I'll be having mine in a very nice home, thank you very much.

        November 24, 2011 at 12:43 am |
    • Rich

      "Iran doesn't have the technology to launch missiles capable to reach any U.S. state or territories"

      No, not at this time. Iran DOES have missiles capable of hitting our allies in Europe, however, and may in the future have missiles that can reach the US. That's the reason for the shield.

      And I agree with Ken that the US would stand to lose far more than we could gain by an invasion of Russia, as they *would* nuke us in retaliation. Of course, that is Russia's whole gripe about the shield; that it would render their nuclear deterrent less effective. I don't see that it would, but that's their argument.

      And the US didn't know there weren't WMD in Iraq. We figured there were, after all we're the ones who sold them to Saddam. That's a moot point though, as WMD weren't the REASON for invading Iraq – just the excuse. And if it was for oil, it didn't work – oil prices are staying high. We didn't exactly have oil tankers lined up, bleeding the country dry. I think it was payback for Saddam's assassination attempt on Bush 41, and to set up a conflict zone with al Qaeda far away from US soil. Better to kill them there, than here. That also didn't work out so well as it became a recruitment tool and served to remove an impediment to regional Iranian hegemony.

      November 24, 2011 at 12:39 am | Reply
      • WMD in Iraq

        Yeah, right. The inspectors jekpt telling Bush II that Iraq did not have WMD. Bush/Cheney didn't want to hear that. They also disregarded the proof from Joe Wilson that Iraq was seeking yellowcake from Nigeria. Bush then lied to the United States Congress about the yellowcake and Cheney ordered the outing of Valerie Plame.

        Bush/Cheney knew Iraq had nothing. They took us into an illegal war anyway. All of those United States deaths and casualties these many years later, not to mention the war costing upwards of a trillion dollars.

        November 24, 2011 at 12:53 am |
    • Jerico

      It won't be the US who will invade Russia if its population continue to decline, China is overcrowded and supah hungry for natural resources and their neighbor has a lot of them, so guess who's gonna be crossing the border...

      November 24, 2011 at 1:02 am | Reply
  52. oltan

    The thing is that the defensive missiles with the proverbial "push of the button" can be turned into offensive ones. So if somebody so decides in the White House, Moscow, for instance, can be annihilated in a few minutes. If the Russians would intend to put nuclear missiles a few minutes from Washington with the promise that they are conventional defenses what would we say? Same with the old Reagan Star Wars, not the potential defense scared them, but the offensive capability.

    November 23, 2011 at 11:56 pm | Reply
    • Carpal Diem

      No, they can't. These missiles are highly specialized, and it would take as much effort to convert them to attack surface targets as it would to deploy entirely new missiles. The reason why Russia is upset is that it devalues their nuclear deterrent - meaning, their nuclear missiles, which are still mostly targeted at the U.S. Their natural response will be to build their own antimissile systems, and to improve their missiles' countermeasures against our missile defense system.
      Incidentally, we had a treaty with the Soviet Union that specifically forbid the development of anti-missile defenses – the 1972 ABM treaty. Wiki has this to say about it:
      "Signed in 1972, it was in force for the next 30 years until the US unilaterally withdrew from it in June 2002."
      So did you miss the Cold War? Well welcome it back! Thanks, George. Thanks a lot.

      November 24, 2011 at 12:20 am | Reply
  53. Flipider.com

    In the last 100 years Russia has murdered over 90 million of there own people. I don't expect better treatment the murdered citizens of Russia.

    November 23, 2011 at 11:52 pm | Reply
    • brothaa

      and... usa have murdered how many people in those last 100 years? and other counties people?

      so murdering other countries people is better then murdering your own, since... not one really notices.

      November 24, 2011 at 12:01 am | Reply
      • Flipider.com

        Germany, Italy, Afghanistan, Irac, Vietnam, North Korea, and Japan were defenseless people.

        November 24, 2011 at 12:20 am |
    • Murdered Russians

      Not sure where you get that figure, but whatever it is the Soviet Union is mostly responsible for the purges. A great majority of those murders occurred with Lenin and Stalin (especially) in power.

      November 24, 2011 at 12:32 am | Reply
  54. Flipider.com

    'm so happy that Russia is our free lobbyist firm in D.C. for our defense industry in the U.S. and around the world.

    November 23, 2011 at 11:51 pm | Reply
  55. Maltese Falcon

    I think Bulgaria would be much better location for the Amerikansky missile shield.
    Maybe and Russian missiles for Kuba.

    November 23, 2011 at 11:50 pm | Reply
  56. Ray

    America is in a bit of a pickle! During the Russian war in Afghanistan the CIA supported the Taliban. An action America scorns out nations for doing with our campaigns in middle Iraq and Afghanistan today. And what reason have we got to believe that Iran (beside a quote from Mockmoodamadeanujaud to whipe Isreal of the map) Wants nuclear weapons? Politicians make Stupid rallying quotes all the time to stir up support. Although I don't agree with like Iran. I dont think its our right to stand in there way of development.
    I believe Russia is taking this similar approach and this is way the protest Americas actions every step of the way. We are just as guilty. We are the only nation to have used the atom bomb in history.

    November 23, 2011 at 11:48 pm | Reply
    • Carlos

      I totally agree with you. The U.S., claiming that this missile defense shield is to just counter Iran makes not sense at all. As you wisely posted, Iran doesn't have the technology to launch missiles capable to reach any U.S. state or territories. What I see here is the following: Russia has a lot of resources [you name it, oil, natural gas, wood, all kind of metals, uranium, etc.] and also has the problem of a population decline, CIA World Factbook 2012 [which I purchased at Amazon.com] says that by mid-2011 Russian population was 138.7 mill. In 25 years from now it will decline to 108.0 mill and will keep falling. The U.S. might be getting ready to move on provoking Russia into war so they can invade it and...guess what? take over Russia's natural resources. The future wars will be fought looking to control energy resources. Why did we invade Iraq in 2003 knowing it did not have WMD? huh?

      November 23, 2011 at 11:59 pm | Reply
      • Russian Resources

        Carlos...

        George Bush II is clearly a dumb human being. He lied about WMD and he likely did it to protect the oil resources of the region, but our country doesn't "own" that oil now. We don't simply pump it and use it ourselves. Iraq controls the oil and it goes through OPEC - which means we still pay through the nose for it. We do not own any of it.

        As for going to war for Russia's resources, it would be either an unwinnable war fought with conventional weapons (very unlikely) or a nuclear war that detroys much of the world and renders the resources meaningless. Your argument is terrible.

        November 24, 2011 at 12:38 am |
      • Aeroman

        @Carlos,

        You're right, Iran DOESN'T have the capability to strike the United States or any of its territories. However, if you knew how to read, the missile shield isn't to protect the U.S. homeland. We already have a missile shield that does that. The missile shield in Europe is designed to protect EUROPE!! The missiles couldn't be a counter to a Russian offensive missile strike because Russian missiles are far too advanced and too numerous. Our limited system in Europe would be instantly overwhelmed. That's why we've been saying it's not directed at Russia. Because it wouldn't work against Russia. And you seriously think we'd be dumb enough to invade Russia? Pass me whatever you're smoking...

        November 24, 2011 at 5:30 am |
  57. Jim

    we all don't know what is going on in behind the scenes, but relying on the infoormation that we have, it is too harsh action, but try to put yourself in place of Russia, would you like them to have a missile program in Mexico or back in Cuba?

    November 23, 2011 at 11:47 pm | Reply
  58. Maurice

    Why would we need a missile shield for protection against missiles from Iran? They don't have the capability to hit the US, but Russian and now Chinese missiles can. This is just another example of how due to the frailty of the human ego, the truth can never be told about the motives of just about ANYTHING. Oh, I am soooo scared of Iran nuking the USA, just like I am soooo scared of a North Korean invasion. I'm really not, but the sad truth is that MOST Americans really would be afraid of such impossible actions since they have no concept of factual reality as it pertains to such things as the military capabilities of other countries much less their own. What do you expect from a bunch of lamebrains who spend all day playing Wii, watching closet homo football, and musing over the smell off some celebrity idol's crap?

    November 23, 2011 at 11:45 pm | Reply
    • toddrf

      can you read? the missile defense shield is for Europe, not the US.

      November 24, 2011 at 12:19 am | Reply
    • Aeroman

      You must not have much of a concept for the English language. The article CLEARLY stated that the shield is designed for missiles directed toward Europe, to protect our European allies and U.S. assets and forces based in Europe.

      The shield is designed to interecept intermediate range balistic missiles, NOT intercontinental balistic missiles that Russia would fire at the U.S. should that ever happen. But Russia can't accept that.

      November 24, 2011 at 5:23 am | Reply
  59. Mike

    As Rodney King so elequantly said..."Can't we all just get along"?

    November 23, 2011 at 11:43 pm | Reply
  60. SGT J

    Let them fire upon our missile site and we will finish what we started in the 60's and put an end to their ways once and for all

    November 23, 2011 at 11:30 pm | Reply
    • D-DON

      Easy said than done.

      November 24, 2011 at 1:08 am | Reply
  61. Carlos

    I've read some of the posts here and, don't make sense. Russia apparently doesn't want missiles near its territory whether they only carry conventional warheads or nuclear ones. It wouldn't be hard to imagine what the U.S. would do if Russia says they want to install a missile defense shield at the U.S. backyard [e.g., missiles in Mexico, Colombia, Peru, Brazil, Venezuela, Argentine, etc.] to protect them from a hostile rogue nation. Would the U.S. allow it? I guess not.

    November 23, 2011 at 11:25 pm | Reply
    • Ken

      You know Carlos, though the US has the superior military I do see your point, and have to agree with you. Wisely put.

      November 23, 2011 at 11:34 pm | Reply
    • Catharsis

      most of the territory russian occupies was stolen

      November 23, 2011 at 11:39 pm | Reply
      • Lee

        Carthasis Can say exactly the same thing about the U.S. considering how much of our country we stole from the Indians. And I'm sure the Hawaiins really wanted us there, and Puerto Rico and Guam and American Samoa. We even entered the War of 1812 only because we thought we could take Canada from Great Britain while it was tied up with France.

        November 24, 2011 at 12:00 am |
      • sagan

        all of the territory the us claims was stolen...

        November 24, 2011 at 12:05 am |
      • steve harnack

        From whom? They don't occupy any Soviet Republics anymore so just what territory have they stolen from whom? And you might want to remember that we stole a whole country from the native inhabitants and the southwest from Mexico. I don't know why I'm even responding to such a stupid comment.

        November 24, 2011 at 1:37 am |
    • Aeroman

      My guess is that if there truly was a hostile rogue state on our side of the world, we'd be dealing with it. Iran, on the other hand, is being HELPED by Russia, and therefore we have no choice but to act on our own and deploy a shield against Iran.

      November 24, 2011 at 5:19 am | Reply
  62. erzhik

    Oh jesus christ,

    November 23, 2011 at 11:17 pm | Reply
  63. mike

    Benign Global Hegemony is such an ugly business.

    November 23, 2011 at 11:08 pm | Reply
  64. John Lane

    If the missles are to defend against Iranian nukes, why not cooperate with Russia in the building and operation of them?

    November 23, 2011 at 11:02 pm | Reply
    • E=MC2

      Would you trust sharing your gun with a neighbor who struts around without a shirt or re-elects himself as Czar of the neighborhood time after time. I don't think so πŸ™‚ Seriously, it simply is not reasonable to share control of a defense system with another country who does not sure your concerns. We all understand that Iran is a pariah state, yet Russia refuses to join sanctions against them. Would you want to share the access code to your home security system with the pedophile living down the street?

      November 23, 2011 at 11:12 pm | Reply
      • D-DON

        Iran is a democratic state and will not nuke any country, they also understand the importance. They stated many times they are building nuclear station and not arms. Iran is a peaceful country than portrayed, they fought less wars than US in the last decades. We should give peace a chance.

        November 24, 2011 at 1:15 am |
      • Aeroman

        @D-DON,

        Threatening to wipe another country off the map doesn't exactly sound peaceful to me.....

        November 24, 2011 at 5:16 am |
    • Aeroman

      Did you not read the article? We've offered. They've refused..

      November 24, 2011 at 5:15 am | Reply
    • MAC

      You would trust Russia to have a veto power for our anti-missle system to stop Iranian missles, I don't. Look at how they are helping Iran by preventing strong sanctions.

      November 24, 2011 at 5:56 am | Reply
  65. E=MC2

    Russia is just doing what all countries do, stand up for their own sovereignty and national interests. Unfortunately, Russia is as internationally backwards as China and Iran. it is very hard to change the coarse of a massive train that is off the track. Russia is slipping back into the old USSR. The nation has had it's prestige seriously hurt and like any humiliated giant, it will take a lot to humble itself into it's new role as a small player in world politics. Unfortunately, like China and Iran and North Korea, it has chosen a path that will only serve as a very weak foundation to potentially one day be a legitimate world player. Today, it is seen as the unsophisticated player trying hard to have a say in a club of respected international players. Some "people" will just never grow up.

    November 23, 2011 at 11:02 pm | Reply
    • Einsteing

      Ok. Russia has surplus and US has 14 trillion deficit genius, who is backwards?

      November 24, 2011 at 1:00 am | Reply
  66. Ted Ward

    What's going on with Medvedive/Putin's Russia? Didn't the Cold War end over twenty years ago? I can't believe we are having this issue at all. The US and Russia no longer have any real intent or reason to threaten one another with nukes, so why this missile issue? Is Putin's legacy and Medvedev's Russia so lame and internally weak politically that they have to invent a delusional external threat a la the Brezhnev era?

    November 23, 2011 at 10:52 pm | Reply
    • Marine5484

      They are sore loosers.

      November 23, 2011 at 11:00 pm | Reply
      • USAhooah!

        *like*

        November 23, 2011 at 11:07 pm |
    • Marine5484

      They are sore losers.

      November 23, 2011 at 11:00 pm | Reply
    • E=MC2

      It's called internal politics meant to assuage the populace of Russia. In terms of international consequences, it is seen as the little kid trying so hard to make the team, will act big, yet is simple out of it's league. We all understand Putin is a joke. What leader struts around without a shirt trying to look matcho? We got rid of Ghadafi, now we still have Putin. I feel for the citizens of Russia. What an embarrassment.

      November 23, 2011 at 11:08 pm | Reply
      • garp0813

        Dude Barrack Obama is going to be the end of all of us , I thought George W bush was a war monger but this guy wants to rule the world.

        November 24, 2011 at 12:41 am |
      • Aeroman

        @Garp0813

        Really?! Lets compare! How many countries did Bush invade? 2. How many countries has Obama invaded? ......................................................... Yeah, that's what I thought. He's invaded 0 countries, is reducing our forces in both Iraq and Afghanistan, he's caught and/or killed more terrorists in his 3 years than Bush did in his 8, his administration is trying to keep Israel from launching an attack that would result in catestrophic consequences, his administration played it perfect - not too hot, but not too cool - toward North Korea last year when the Korean Peninsula was on the brink of war, and he averted a catestrophic scenario there. Sooooo, tell me how he'll be the end of us again?

        November 24, 2011 at 5:11 am |
    • Lee

      Then why are we putting missle defense systems near Russia? I'm an American and even I don't believe our governments excuses. Frankly if the the Europeans want a missle defense shield let them develop and pay for one, not us. When and if Iran has the capacity to hit us with nuclear missles then we might consider a shield. First though Iran has to develope nuclear weapons, which it may or may not be doing, then it has to develop intercontinental delivery system. Not likely in the forseeable future.

      November 24, 2011 at 12:04 am | Reply
  67. ItsClobberingTime

    some day one of these political posturing tricks is going to put an end to the political game as we know it. GOOD. more of us are waking up everyday.

    November 23, 2011 at 10:51 pm | Reply
  68. Sharon

    This missile shield just in case Iran should attack–can also intercept missiles from Israel going toward Iran.

    Fancy way of getting around an issue. This shield can and WILL DO BOTH!

    Obama has shown he is not for Israel-Russia isn't as broke as one thinks--Russia is behind the Iranian leader. When Iran their last elections–America was hoping that Amdinejad wouldn't get re-elected. The was going to be a recount–Obama didn't do one thing-RUSSIAN LEADER PICKS UP THE PHONE AND TOLD THE SUPREME LEADER OVER THE Revolutionary Army STATED-=-WE (THE Russians) recognize Admindinejad as the leader of Iran.

    Who is the aggressor–and how many weapons–supplies for their Iranian NUKE program came from Russia. This Iranian leader has been on RUSSIAN soil-the Iranian leader was welcomed in Russia. Add to that scenario–Russia won't take hard action against IRAN! Russia announced it is going to build up more sophisticated weapons-

    Also this IRANIAN LEADER went to GAZA and met with leaders there too–right in Israel's backyard.

    How long has it been since Russia has threatened America? The Russian leader (whether Putnin–or the current leader) clearly stated they would place their missiles and would not hesitate to TAKE OUT OUR MISSILES-OBAMA–OBIDEN aren't mature enough to know–Russia means what they say-

    November 23, 2011 at 10:32 pm | Reply
    • Pinche Vato

      And you are......?

      November 23, 2011 at 10:36 pm | Reply
    • EdNv

      Yeah right, we would EVER take out missles going from Israel to Iran - you are a m0r0n.

      November 23, 2011 at 11:07 pm | Reply
    • Ken

      Well, if they take out any US military installments its an act of war. One Russia doesn't want. The US military is vastly superior on the conventional aspect, and on the nuclear side of it its mutual destruction as well. In other words Russia is blowing smoke as they did in the cold war. They have nothing to gain, and all to lose regarding a military incident with the US.

      November 23, 2011 at 11:23 pm | Reply
  69. America rocks

    You guys waste your time arguing on here. I could really care less what anyone has to say. I'm bacteria and a prostitute??? Ok? Were you guys home schooled? My point is f*ck russia! Have fun debating and getting all bent out of shape over someone else's comment.

    November 23, 2011 at 10:32 pm | Reply
    • Pinche Vato

      Try to learn the word 'diplomacy'....it works better than the home-schooled language you use.

      November 23, 2011 at 10:35 pm | Reply
  70. Pinche Vato

    It is just a bluff from Medvedev for political purposes. He knows the missiles are pointed elsewhere.

    November 23, 2011 at 10:31 pm | Reply
    • Ken

      Agreed

      November 23, 2011 at 11:25 pm | Reply
  71. Maltese Falcon

    This missile screen should be negotiated between Germany, Poland and Russia (+Ukrainia, Belarus).
    Amerikan technology fouls up way to often. You need to sell Chevrolets to those countries. Otherwise bankruptcy.

    November 23, 2011 at 10:29 pm | Reply
  72. King78

    America rocks,

    Today, you are simply one big fat degenerate.

    November 23, 2011 at 10:28 pm | Reply
  73. King78

    America rocks,

    Let me put it in simple words for you son. You are bacteria that is not capable to perform. You are handicap from nature. Establish if you are he or she.

    November 23, 2011 at 10:26 pm | Reply
  74. MAC

    If you think Russia, China, Pakistan, the Middle East, and many other countries are our friends, take of the rose colored glasses and stop smoking MJ so you can see the real world! Isreal, Great Briton, including Australia and Canada are the only true friends America has, the other countries would not come to our aid like we have come to theirs.

    November 23, 2011 at 10:25 pm | Reply
  75. King78

    America rocks,

    You are wrong about yourself today. Why? You are molecule that has no penis and your mother feels sorry about missing opportunity of abortion. You are prostitute.

    November 23, 2011 at 10:25 pm | Reply
  76. trupti

    Why would Iran want to a launch an attack against Europe? That's a siily assertion. Iran has 2 enemies- America and Israel. This missile defence system is really because of Europe's fear of Russia.

    November 23, 2011 at 10:23 pm | Reply
  77. Earl

    The United States or NATO is just asking for trouble Putin has every right to be worried, and frieghtend because with the hawkish Jew funded nut job warmongers we have running this country. We are on the road to becoming another 3rd reich
    Obama and his NATO stooges are doing nothing but playing with fire. Wake the sleeping giant pay the price.

    November 23, 2011 at 10:21 pm | Reply
    • Ken

      Wake the sleeping Giant? I think you are mistaken.

      November 23, 2011 at 11:26 pm | Reply
  78. WhackyWaco

    Russia is not as weak as you may think.

    November 23, 2011 at 10:21 pm | Reply
    • Ken

      You are right in saying they aren't weak. But the fact remains the US Navy is the most powerful military force on the face of the world, with nothing even slightly rivaling its destructive power. No major players in the world want a war with the US, because on a conventional playing field they simply cannot compete. The alternative military course of action is nuclear based, and is assured mutual destruction. Neither option is viable for Russia.

      November 23, 2011 at 11:29 pm | Reply
      • garp0813

        Tell that to all the soldiers we lost in Vietnam , we were far superior to them too but it did not matter. Forgive the baseball anology here but it easier to win home games than to go into someone else's park and win. This president we have needs to be removed from office and as soon as possible, there is nothing wrong with being the military power of the world, but do we need to go into others countries and be there protector, and tell others how they should live there lives. That has always been the American downfall and it called conquest.

        November 24, 2011 at 12:53 am |
      • Ken

        garp0813: Vietnam was a war in which the US was focused on a ground occupation, a take and hold oriented scheme. A conventional conflict between Russia, and the US would be quite different. Rather then a defensive occupation of half of an Asiatic country hindered by political cry babies this subject involves two large offensively capable, and structured military powers. There would likely be no large ground invasion by either side, rather it would be a race by both sides to eradicate each others offensive military capabilities thus creating a situation wherein one side has offensive capability while the other has too little, or no capability to effectively respond creating the necessitous need for conditional surrender by the losing side, or taking it to an unconventional level which almost certainly ends poorly for both sides, and third parties.
        In such a conflict the US is more then vastly better equipped to handle a force on force conflict then Russia, or any other nation or alliance for that matter. The US Navy alone is by its self and alone the most powerful military force on the face of the earth with absolutely no conventional competition even remotely comparable. The outcome of such a conflict is despite what many may think vastly one sided to put it lightly.

        November 24, 2011 at 1:13 am |
      • Ken

        However, on a moral, and political standpoint I would agree that the idea of the US placing these sites in Russia's backyard is rather cocky on our part. It would not set well with the US if the tables were turned, and it was Russia trying to place the same units in our backyard. Bay of pigs anyone?

        November 24, 2011 at 1:17 am |
      • Sergey

        Hitler in 1941 thought the german army would have defeated Soviet Union within several months. You know, how it all went...

        November 24, 2011 at 4:22 am |
  79. America rocks

    Today, I'm a guy and I f*cked your father in the shower.

    November 23, 2011 at 10:21 pm | Reply
  80. King78

    America rocks,

    Are you male or female today?

    November 23, 2011 at 10:18 pm | Reply
  81. King78

    America rocks,

    You have no balls, you were born with vagina.

    November 23, 2011 at 10:17 pm | Reply
  82. King78

    I'd say SS-21 would be great against American Missile Shield.

    November 23, 2011 at 10:14 pm | Reply
    • S00nerdad

      Doesn't matter what they deploy. Russian military wares suck in their reliability and technological applications.

      November 23, 2011 at 10:23 pm | Reply
  83. America rocks

    Russia can lick my balls

    November 23, 2011 at 10:13 pm | Reply
    • Sammy

      lol. says some redneck living in a trailer park with no health insurance and with some missing teeth.

      November 23, 2011 at 10:21 pm | Reply
  84. Maltese Falcon

    After the mess NATO made out of Libya, there is no reason for a capitalist democracy like Russia to make any unfair agreemens with such an organisation. Maybe if they could disconnect themselves from the psychopaths and war criminals of the Amerikan government, then a responsible country such as Russia would be more willing to consider defensive agreements in the interest of greater Europe. Until something is done to curb the fanatical desire of whoever it is that really runs the United States to control the whole entire world, Russia has to remain one of the last bastions against Amerikan totalitarianism.

    November 23, 2011 at 10:12 pm | Reply
    • Huh?

      "...responsible country such as Russia,.." ? You must be refering to that Other Russia, on Mars. We have lots of Russian here in the States. Your comment =...sigh,...

      November 23, 2011 at 10:29 pm | Reply
      • Sergey

        How can you judge the nation by the people you deal with away from their Homeland?

        November 24, 2011 at 4:15 am |
  85. reddeadcommies

    should have gotten rid of those commies the first time around

    November 23, 2011 at 10:06 pm | Reply
  86. King78

    Medvedev needs to order to put SS-18 and SS-25 in Belorus and Armenia.

    November 23, 2011 at 10:04 pm | Reply
    • S00nerdad

      oh yea? what if they just tell mevedev NO! Once the new USSR comes along (that's when the dictator Putin gets himself re-elected) then they'll start trying to take back those countries who freed themselves from Soviet communisim in the past. Then we'll have WW III and once and for all do away with the commie-fascits in east europe. And as for the putin re-elected comment, everyone with a brain knows that putin will buy and thug his way back to the top. And that's fine because he needs to have his ass kicked by the good ol USA and her Allies (including the old soviet block countries like Poland).

      November 23, 2011 at 10:30 pm | Reply
  87. TheTruth

    No one is scared of Russia anymore, they're just trying to flex whatever muscles they have left before they perminantly fall down the super power food chain.

    November 23, 2011 at 10:03 pm | Reply
    • Maltese Falcon

      You're right. They are only terrified of Amerika, the most dangerous country of all time.

      November 23, 2011 at 10:15 pm | Reply
  88. FRYAMERIKA

    NATO has no balls to take on Russia. Not sure if NATO wants to get destroyed.

    November 23, 2011 at 9:55 pm | Reply
    • TheTruth

      Dude no one is scared of Russia anymore move on....

      November 23, 2011 at 10:06 pm | Reply
    • MAyor B in PA..

      the american people arent against anyone, others just accuse and make acts of agression against.. And we always stirke back with such Superior Authority.. And just take your name for example,this is why we come kick your A$$

      November 23, 2011 at 10:08 pm | Reply
  89. cobovn

    Does anyone proof read this blog? "Even it Obama want..." and "more skeptical about U.S. intentions then Medvedev is, so there will..." Come on CNN, as least get the grammar correct.

    November 23, 2011 at 9:54 pm | Reply
  90. Kilovesjo

    First of all why do we need this? The people of europe and israel can defend themselves. To deploy these missiles for the "if they make a nuke" theory is just absurd. So if the Iranians don't make a nuke bomb then what? Will we pay to dismantle it? Flash news America, We are the evil that we are trying to get rid of.

    November 23, 2011 at 9:54 pm | Reply
  91. XUI AMERIKI

    I wish Russia could fire just 100 TOPOL-M or BULAVA Missiles towards Amerika. Just for fun.

    November 23, 2011 at 9:54 pm | Reply
  92. Jason S

    I Soviet Russia Missile shields you!

    November 23, 2011 at 9:52 pm | Reply
  93. Abresh

    Russia needs to be given the middle finger on this. Iran is one of the countries that are on the short list of "If they get nuclear weapons, they are more likely than most to use them aggressively!" Still not highly likelihood of that, but in this case you have to prepare for the WCS's here.

    November 23, 2011 at 9:49 pm | Reply
    • Kilovesjo

      So will you allow Russia, Iran, China, Pakistan, India etc to place Missiles facing America because we are a threat to them? Don't forget the "they will get a nuke bomb" theory came from the same media that told you that Iraq has WMD. No nation should be surrounded by missiles, no matter how much WE hate them. Believe me, the Iranians aren't stupid.

      November 23, 2011 at 10:05 pm | Reply
  94. DaviAmeriku

    MattVP,

    After you'll f'k yourself

    November 23, 2011 at 9:49 pm | Reply
  95. Patrick

    I cannot blame them since they have been invaded and conquered many times over the past millennium. That said, they (Putin and Medy boy) have put Poland in a bad position since that is where these missiles would be housed; while there is no real danger to the USSR (in truth that concept never really changed in my opinion…) I have to think about how I would feel if I lived in Poland; uneasy. While Putin is no friend of the US by any means he does understand what a first strike on Poland would mean to the USSR and frankly to the rest of the world...

    November 23, 2011 at 9:48 pm | Reply
    • John

      If you are a country that has been invaded and conquered before, than it is very smart to house a very important strategic weapon of the worlds biggest power. I would rather my enemies worry about my country and the US than just my country.

      November 24, 2011 at 3:36 am | Reply
  96. FukAmerika

    MattVP,

    After you F* yourself

    November 23, 2011 at 9:48 pm | Reply
  97. Grant

    This move by Obama just sealed my vote for him in 2012. I think he has proven he has a backbone and isn't afraid to act in the best interests of our country and its allies; even if it means upsetting Russia a bit.

    November 23, 2011 at 9:43 pm | Reply
  98. Maltese Falcon

    Russia good country.
    Amerika bad.

    November 23, 2011 at 9:41 pm | Reply
    • Patrick

      Sure, still where would you rather live Russia or the USA? My guess is the latter...

      November 23, 2011 at 9:51 pm | Reply
      • Sammy

        Honestly – not anymore. Russian migration in US is decreasing year by year if I'm not mistaken. Many folks I ask simply don't wanna go to States. You can make as much money in Moscow and Saint Petersbug as in US and there is also normal social system there too.

        November 23, 2011 at 10:31 pm |
  99. MattVP

    Hey Russia, go F* yourself

    November 23, 2011 at 9:35 pm | Reply
    • Pinche Vato

      Matt, see it is that posture, that type of thinking, which led to world to hate the U.S. under Bush. You can do better.

      November 23, 2011 at 10:34 pm | Reply
1 2

Leave a Reply to Barbera Bammon


 

CNN welcomes a lively and courteous discussion as long as you follow the Rules of Conduct set forth in our Terms of Service. Comments are not pre-screened before they post. You agree that anything you post may be used, along with your name and profile picture, in accordance with our Privacy Policy and the license you have granted pursuant to our Terms of Service.