Unsurprisingly, the Bush administration is going ahead regardless of
the controversy.
Putin cannot allow the United States to deploy its missile defense
system to Eastern Europe. The system poses a direct threat to
Russia's national security. If Putin planned to deploy a similar
system in Cuba or Mexico, the Bush administration would immediately
invoke the Monroe Doctrine and threaten to remove it by force. No one
doubts this. And no one should doubt that Putin is equally determined
to protect his own country's interests in the same way. We can expect
that Russia will now aim its missiles at European targets and rework
its foreign policy in a way that compels the US to abandon its
current plans.
The media has tried to minimize the dangers of the proposed system.
The Washington Post even characterized it as "a small missile defense
system" which has set off "waves of paranoia about domestic and
foreign opponents".
Nonsense. Nothing could be further from the truth.
As Putin said at the press conference, "Once the missile defense
system is put in place IT WILL WORK AUTOMATICALLY WITH THE ENTIRE
NUCLEAR CAPABILITY OF THE UNITED STATES. It will be an integral part
of the US nuclear capability.
"For the first time in history---and I want to emphasize this---there
are elements of the US nuclear capability on the European continent.
It simply changes the whole configuration of international
security.....Of course, we have to respond to that."
Putin is right. The "so-called" defense system is actually an
expansion (and integration) of America's existing nuclear weapons
system which will now function as one unit. The dangers of this
should be obvious.
The Bush administration is maneuvering in a way that will allow it to
achieve what Nuclear weapons specialist, Francis A. Boyle, calls
the "longstanding US policy of nuclear first-strike against Russia".
In Boyle's article "US Missiles in Europe: Beyond Deterrence to First
Strike Threat" he states:
"By means of a US first strike about 99%+ of Russian nuclear forces
would be taken out. Namely, the United States Government believes
that with the deployment of a facially successful first strike
capability, they can move beyond deterrence and into "compellence."...
This has been analyzed ad nauseam in the professional literature. But
especially by one of Harvard's premier warmongers in chief, Thomas
Schelling --winner of the Nobel Prize in Economics granted by the
Bank of Sweden-- who developed the term "compellence" and
distinguished it from "deterrence." ...The USG is breaking out of
a "deterrence" posture and moving into a "compellence" posture.
(Global Research 6-6-07)
That's right. The real goal is to force Moscow to conform to
Washington's "diktats" or face the prospect of "first-strike"
annihilation. That's why Putin has expressed growing concern over the
administration's dropping out of the ABM Treaty and the development
of a new regime of low yield, bunker-busting nuclear weapons.
The "hawks" who surround Bush have abandoned the "deterrence" policy
of the past, and now believe that a nuclear war can be "won" by the
United States. This is madness and it needs to be taken seriously.
The Bush administration sees itself as a main player in Central Asia
and the Middle East---controlling vital resources and pipeline
corridors throughout the region. That means Russia's influence will
have to be diminished. Boris Yeltsin was the perfect leader for the
neoconservative master-plan (which is why the right-wingers Praised
him when he died) Russia disintegrated under Yeltsin. He oversaw the
dismantling of the state, the plundering of its resources and state-
owned assets, and the restructuring of its economy according to the
tenets of neoliberalism.
No wonder the neocons loved him.
Under Putin, Russia has regained its economic footing, its regional
influence and its international prestige. The economy is booming, the
ruble has stabilized, the standard of living has risen, and Moscow
has strengthened alliances with its neighbors. This new-found Russian
prosperity poses a real challenge to Bush's plans.
Two actions in particular have changed the Russian-US relationship
from tepid to openly hostile. The first was when Putin announced that
Russia's four largest oil fields would not be open to foreign
development. (Russia has been consolidating its oil wealth under
state-run Gazprom) And, second, when the Russian Treasury began to
convert Russia's dollar reserves into gold and rubles. Both of these
are regarded as high-crimes by US corporate chieftains and western
elites. Their response was swift.
John Edwards and Jack Kemp were appointed to lead a Council on
Foreign Relations (CFR) task force which concocted the basic pretext
for an all-out assault on the Putin. This is where the idea that
Putin is "rolling back democracy" began; it's a feeble excuse for
political antagonism. In their article "Russia's Wrong Direction",
Edwards and Kemp state that a "strategic partnership" with Russia is
no longer possible. They note that the government has become
increasingly "authoritarian" and that the society is growing
less "open and pluralistic". Blah, blah, blah. No one in the
Washington really cares about democracy. (Just look at our "good
friends" in Saudi Arabia, Azerbaijan, Uzbekistan, and Kazakhstan)
What they're afraid of is Putin ditching the dollar and controlling
his own oil. That's what counts. Bush also wants Putin to support
sanctions against Iran and rubber stamp a Security Council resolution
to separate Kosovo form Serbia. (Since when does the UN have the
right to redraw national borders? Was the creation of Israel such a
stunning success that the Security Council wants to try its luck
again?)
the controversy.
Putin cannot allow the United States to deploy its missile defense
system to Eastern Europe. The system poses a direct threat to
Russia's national security. If Putin planned to deploy a similar
system in Cuba or Mexico, the Bush administration would immediately
invoke the Monroe Doctrine and threaten to remove it by force. No one
doubts this. And no one should doubt that Putin is equally determined
to protect his own country's interests in the same way. We can expect
that Russia will now aim its missiles at European targets and rework
its foreign policy in a way that compels the US to abandon its
current plans.
The media has tried to minimize the dangers of the proposed system.
The Washington Post even characterized it as "a small missile defense
system" which has set off "waves of paranoia about domestic and
foreign opponents".
Nonsense. Nothing could be further from the truth.
system is put in place IT WILL WORK AUTOMATICALLY WITH THE ENTIRE
NUCLEAR CAPABILITY OF THE UNITED STATES. It will be an integral part
of the US nuclear capability.
"For the first time in history---and I want to emphasize this---there
are elements of the US nuclear capability on the European continent.
It simply changes the whole configuration of international
security.....Of course, we have to respond to that."
Putin is right. The "so-called" defense system is actually an
expansion (and integration) of America's existing nuclear weapons
system which will now function as one unit. The dangers of this
should be obvious.
The Bush administration is maneuvering in a way that will allow it to
achieve what Nuclear weapons specialist, Francis A. Boyle, calls
the "longstanding US policy of nuclear first-strike against Russia".
In Boyle's article "US Missiles in Europe: Beyond Deterrence to First
Strike Threat" he states:
"By means of a US first strike about 99%+ of Russian nuclear forces
would be taken out. Namely, the United States Government believes
that with the deployment of a facially successful first strike
capability, they can move beyond deterrence and into "compellence."...
This has been analyzed ad nauseam in the professional literature. But
especially by one of Harvard's premier warmongers in chief, Thomas
Schelling --winner of the Nobel Prize in Economics granted by the
Bank of Sweden-- who developed the term "compellence" and
distinguished it from "deterrence." ...The USG is breaking out of
a "deterrence" posture and moving into a "compellence" posture.
(Global Research 6-6-07)
That's right. The real goal is to force Moscow to conform to
Washington's "diktats" or face the prospect of "first-strike"
annihilation. That's why Putin has expressed growing concern over the
administration's dropping out of the ABM Treaty and the development
of a new regime of low yield, bunker-busting nuclear weapons.
The "hawks" who surround Bush have abandoned the "deterrence" policy
of the past, and now believe that a nuclear war can be "won" by the
United States. This is madness and it needs to be taken seriously.
The Bush administration sees itself as a main player in Central Asia
and the Middle East---controlling vital resources and pipeline
corridors throughout the region. That means Russia's influence will
have to be diminished. Boris Yeltsin was the perfect leader for the
neoconservative master-plan (which is why the right-wingers Praised
him when he died) Russia disintegrated under Yeltsin. He oversaw the
dismantling of the state, the plundering of its resources and state-
owned assets, and the restructuring of its economy according to the
tenets of neoliberalism.
No wonder the neocons loved him.
Under Putin, Russia has regained its economic footing, its regional
influence and its international prestige. The economy is booming, the
ruble has stabilized, the standard of living has risen, and Moscow
has strengthened alliances with its neighbors. This new-found Russian
prosperity poses a real challenge to Bush's plans.
Two actions in particular have changed the Russian-US relationship
from tepid to openly hostile. The first was when Putin announced that
Russia's four largest oil fields would not be open to foreign
development. (Russia has been consolidating its oil wealth under
state-run Gazprom) And, second, when the Russian Treasury began to
convert Russia's dollar reserves into gold and rubles. Both of these
are regarded as high-crimes by US corporate chieftains and western
elites. Their response was swift.
John Edwards and Jack Kemp were appointed to lead a Council on
Foreign Relations (CFR) task force which concocted the basic pretext
for an all-out assault on the Putin. This is where the idea that
Putin is "rolling back democracy" began; it's a feeble excuse for
political antagonism. In their article "Russia's Wrong Direction",
Edwards and Kemp state that a "strategic partnership" with Russia is
no longer possible. They note that the government has become
increasingly "authoritarian" and that the society is growing
less "open and pluralistic". Blah, blah, blah. No one in the
Washington really cares about democracy. (Just look at our "good
friends" in Saudi Arabia, Azerbaijan, Uzbekistan, and Kazakhstan)
What they're afraid of is Putin ditching the dollar and controlling
his own oil. That's what counts. Bush also wants Putin to support
sanctions against Iran and rubber stamp a Security Council resolution
to separate Kosovo form Serbia. (Since when does the UN have the
right to redraw national borders? Was the creation of Israel such a
stunning success that the Security Council wants to try its luck
again?)
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
