Originally Posted by roachboy

i dont think it's accurate to refer to folk as "russia supporters" because they are baffled by the actions of the bush administration in this particular situation.

a) the timing of the missle deal with poland could not have been worse.
b) putin's political situation is such that he kinda needs an Enemy to legitimate an increasingly autocratic order. i read several analyses (all in french because i was doing it in the context of a work project) the argued the transition out of the early 90s phase have been such that the entire idea of democracy has been undermined and replaced with a kind of neo-statist ideology, which meshes well with putin's more authoritarian style--but at the same time, he is in a shaky position in terms of legitimacy.
c) the foreign policy expressions of this situation have played out in a more or less straight line since last february (kosovo) and are outlined pretty well in the articles i posted above.
d) the interests of the neocons, who to my dismay continue to exercise power in the foreign policy context, seem to be heading toward a replacement Enemy for the "terrorist" ghost in order to justify both continued massive (and unnecessary) military expenditures on the part of the united states and to prop themselves up politically at the same time.

this just seems like a vast confederacy of dunces, all the way around.
dunces with nukes.
so no ordinary confederacy.

Originally Posted by The_Dunedan

Umm...no.

This deal has been in the works for some time. It's WILDLY unpopular in Poland and the Czech Republic, with the CR in particular being 65-90% opposed, with 80% opposed being the most reliable and frequently-quoted number. Various political and financial powerhouses (especially the Schwartzenberg family) within these two countries are after the deal for economic reasons, but the missile-defense system is extremely unpopular with the populace. They're a whole lot more worried about what Russia will do if the system -is- emplaced (turn off the gas in January, nuke Mlada Boleslav, or simply invade) than what Russia might do if the system stays a pipe-dream. They've dealt with Russians before, they don't wish to do so again, and they're well aware that the U.S. and NATO will be perfectly happy to let them twist in the radioactive wind. They don't trust NATO to do anythiRussia's objections are multivalate:

1: NATO is breaking its' commitment not to expand. Not only has NATO expanded, it's expanded into the former Warsaw Pact.

2: Such a missile-defense system destroys nuclear parity, invalidates MAD, and radically and dangerously changes the nuclear worldwide balance of power.

3: The U.S. was offered the joint use of an Azeri radar station and airbase to house the system, with dual oversight and data-sharing with Russia. The Azeri station would have been in a better position to monitor Iran in any case, but the U.S. said no. This in particular is seen by Russia as a deliberate snub an a not-so-thinly-veiled threat in their direction.

4: These allegedly unarmed missiles could easily be replaced with medium-range ballistic missiles which would then be in ideal firing position against Russia.


For once, I find myself in full agreement with roachboy. A confederacy of nuclear dunces indeed.