Putin plans pre-emptive strikes on terrorists - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Mephisto2 · 09-08-2004, 01:17 PM

Quote:

Putin plans pre-emptive strikes on terrorists

Moscow's threat to launch preemptive strikes on terror bases around the world following the school massacre in southern Russia drew support from London and Washington today but sparked misgivings in several other capitals.

"We will take steps to liquidate terror bases in any region" in the world, Russian Chief of Staff General Yury Baluyevsky told reporters at a meeting with US General James Jones, NATO's supreme allied commander for Europe.

Baluyevsky, quoted by Interfax news agency, noted that the doctrine of preventive military action against terror targets had been spelled out publicly before and said such steps were only an "extreme measure" that did not include use of nuclear force.

In London, British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw said today that Russia's stance was "understandable" and within international law.

"I think the reaction is an understandable one," said Straw. "The United Nations charter does give the right of self-defence and the UN itself has accepted that an imminent or likely threat of terrorism certainly entitles any state to take appropriate action."

He added that he did not think that Russian President Vladimir Putin was thinking "about launching any immediate attack".

A senior White House official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said Washington did not oppose Russia's stance.

"Every country has the right to defend itself" the official said, requesting anonymity because the United States has not yet carved out an official public position on the newly announced policy.

In the past, however, Washington has cautioned Moscow against undertaking military action in areas like Georgia's Pankisi Gorge. Russia says the remote region is a haven for Chechen separatist fighters it has branded terrorists.

In Paris, the French foreign ministry offered a more guarded reaction.

"For us, this is a question that should be debated within the European framework, the Group of Eight and obviously at the United Nations," foreign ministry spokesman Herve Ladsous told reporters.

"The fight against terrorism is a priority for the entire international community," the spokesman added.

Turkish Prime Minister Tayyip Recep Erdogan meanwhile took issue with Moscow's position, saying no country "no matter how powerful" can combat terrorism "with a one-sided approach, saying 'I will act and I will clear up the matter'."

"Terrorism ... is such a phenomenon that no one can say with certainty who should be struck, when and how," Erdogan said.

Instead, he suggested joint international action, with exchanges of intelligence and opinion, to efficiently combat terror.

Meanwhile, the European Commission downplayed Baluyevsky's comments.

A spokeswoman for EU external relations commissioner Emma Udwin said she had not seen the comments, but added: "I would pay more attention if it had come from Putin."

"We all know that terrorism has to be tackled in a variety of means, but probably such statements are not the first instrument that will bring results," she said when asked about the remarks.

At least 336 civilians and rescue and security workers, along with 31 hostage-takers, died in the three-day siege last week in the North Ossetia city of Beslan bordering Chechnya .

In parliament earlier today, British Prime Minister Tony Blair said a harrowing video inside the besieged Beslan school, made by the hostage-takers themselves, and aired on Russian television, laid bare their "inhumanity".

In the wake of the September 11, 2001 terror attacks in the United States, Britain actively backed a new US policy of preemptive strikes by joining the United States in launching wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

AFP

Interesting difference in US/UK reaction and that of the European powers (does the UK even count as European any more?! :-))

I'm in two minds about this. I can see it as US/UK giving the Russians carte blanche to strike, without the pesky nuisance of international investigation or analysis... kind of like what Israel does in the Occupied Terroritories.

But... I can understand the Russian desire for vengence. It's no different from Reagan trying to assassinate Qaddafi back in the 80's.

Mr Mephisto

MSD · 09-08-2004, 02:53 PM

I think that caution should be exercised, and evidence should be presented before any pre-emptive strike and discussed among foreign intelligence experts before taking drastic action. The Russian government is still bitter about their loss of control over former Soviet Republics, and discussing plans beforehand will give their actions more legitimacy than a unilateral attack, and prevent the appearance of being a spoiled kid who's lashing out because he lost his toys. Attacking terrorists/separatists/whatever you want to call them in order to prevent attacks on civilians is acceptable, but is not a decisinon that should be taken lightly.

tecoyah · 09-08-2004, 02:58 PM

Guess he has taken a page out of the U.S strategic military reference guide.
I was wondering how long it would take for someone to justify attacks based on our lead.

powerclown · 09-08-2004, 03:25 PM

Add Russia to the list of allies in the war against militant islamic fundamentalism. The Russians will never forget, or forgive, this tragedy.

Mephisto2 · 09-08-2004, 03:45 PM

Add Russia to the list of countries helping militant fundamentalist countries develop nuclear power. The Russians will never pass up an opportunity to make strategic gains at America's expense.

Mr Mephisto

ShaniFaye · 09-08-2004, 04:01 PM

ya'll I hardly ever post in this forum because I really dont care for the way most discussions go...and admittedly Im not as "up" on this stuff as you all are...but I have a question because surely I am misunderstanding this...so please bare with me and dont make fun of me for asking..

this quote specifically says round the world...meaning not within their own country

Quote:

Moscow's threat to launch preemptive strikes on terror bases around the world following the school massacre in southern Russia drew support from London and Washington today but sparked misgivings in several other capitals.

now here is where you're going to make fun of me
Did the US not get bashed for vowing and doing the same thing after 9/11?

Mephisto2 · 09-08-2004, 04:49 PM

Bingo!

You're absolutely right Shani. That's one of the worrying things I wanted to highlight.

And that's why the US is supporting Russia on this. In better times, the US would be criticising Russia for its Chechnya policy, but in today's terribly changed world, things seem to have gone topsy-turvy.

It's sad that the world's two most powerful nations have both been targets of extremist terrorism, and that they react in a short-sighted military manner rather than a more considered, engaging, long-term strategic manner with a view to treating the cause as well as the symptom.

Mr Mephisto

OpieCunningham · 09-08-2004, 05:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Mephisto

It's sad that the world's two most powerful nations have both been targets of extremist terrorism, and that they react in a short-sighted military manner rather than a more considered, engaging, long-term strategic manner with a view to treating the cause as well as the symptom.

Mephisto is my new hero!

ShaniFaye · 09-08-2004, 05:05 PM

Thank you for making me feel better Mr Mephisto...I was honestly afraid of making that post

Dragonlich · 09-08-2004, 11:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Mephisto

It's sad that the world's two most powerful nations have both been targets of extremist terrorism, and that they react in a short-sighted military manner rather than a more considered, engaging, long-term strategic manner with a view to treating the cause as well as the symptom.

How do you know that a military strike here and there will not have a long-term positive effect? Just downplaying it as "short-sighted" doesn't really cut it this time. Fact of the matter is that there are countries that are unable or unwilling to put a stop to known terrorist activities. If these countries can't stop it, someone else has to. And frankly, I don't care one bit whether the locals there will get upset - if we didn't strike, *our* locals would be killed. Perhaps the locals there will start to understand that there are consequences to their (in)actions, and they'll change.

Of course, I prefer a more balanced approach, where pre-emtive strikes are combined with long-term strategy. I won't ignore the Islamic extremists, nor their massive support in some parts of the world. In my view, if you support terrorism, you should pay the price; In the long term, I prefer a "if you *don't* support terrorism, you will get a better life" strategy.

Zeld2.0 · 09-08-2004, 11:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dragonlich

How do you know that a military strike here and there will not have a long-term positive effect? Just downplaying it as "short-sighted" doesn't really cut it this time. Fact of the matter is that there are countries that are unable or unwilling to put a stop to known terrorist activities. If these countries can't stop it, someone else has to. And frankly, I don't care one bit whether the locals there will get upset - if we didn't strike, *our* locals would be killed. Perhaps the locals there will start to understand that there are consequences to their (in)actions, and they'll change.

Of course, I prefer a more balanced approach, where pre-emtive strikes are combined with long-term strategy. I won't ignore the Islamic extremists, nor their massive support in some parts of the world. In my view, if you support terrorism, you should pay the price; In the long term, I prefer a "if you *don't* support terrorism, you will get a better life" strategy.

Well the same could be said about how one could prove military strikes here and there would help in the long term if at all.

I think the problem is that much of this and even Iraq is made in *response* to terrorist actions. And often times, that problem creates the issue of creating possibly candidates for terrorism out of people who previously had little to no reason to.

And really, there isn't honestly much that locals can do in terms of action against terrorists. One could say, hand em weapons, and fight - but of course, they could always turn them right around on us (see: Soviets in Afghanistan).

And one cannot ignore locals being upset - that is a big problem in the long run. In fact, that damages the effectiveness of long term military strikes. If you upset locals, which are they more likely to be upset about? The people dropping the bombs, or the targets of those bombs. As with most people, blame would be on those dropping the bombs.

The bigger thing about terrorism and this problem in general is how deeply rooted it is in human psychology. If one punches you in the face, how many here would probably react by wanting to punch back? Many would take it as a challenge and fight back, even if the punch was intended to your friend standing by you.

It might sound irrational on here and it might sound illogical and a big "no, I wouldn't" could be said - but honestly, think back to even high school and fights... many people would fight for things in retrospect seem foolish, but in the moment, the animal inside is released.

On the issue of "not supporting terrorism for a better life" - throw out Iraq for now and put it in other nations. What if those people honestly have a good life and aren't affected by terrorists nearby? What if those people are the average joes of those countries and aren't affected by them and thus aren't even associated or don't even support them?

What if fighting back meant a death squad would pick up your family and execute them? Or what if, that government itself, has little to no resources to fighting clandestine fighters which can weave in and out of the population, and hide as criminals. They could be like the local mafia in many places - they run the shots in local areas, and can escape from trouble with ease.

And I personally think that is where the current doctrine of fighting "organized" terrorism fails - you can't necessarily destroy an infrastructure or organization if that organization isn't like a government or group in the traditional sense. They may be rooted far deeper or far different from anything bombs being dropped can destroy. In other words, it may not be a tangible target you go out and seek to destroy.

And again, as stated above, ignoring the locals anger will only feed those with more volunteers. If that group isn't there, someone else will take up the call, so long as the will to is there. That is probably the overall biggest beef - more force isn't going to stop the possible new recruits and those affected who once had nothing to do with anything but suddenly seek revenge.

Its those normal people thrust into extraordinary situations that go do extreme things. Its true among soldiers - regular citizens thrust into far-from-regular situations (battle for instance) and doing extraordinary things (heroism under fire is just one such example).

My personal belief? Do something similar to what the Saudis and Israelis have done - Saudis by promising amnesty to those who turn themselves in (lower ranking members, create an incentive to quit, remove the real base of strength in organizations) while you use the Israeli method of intelligence agents and special operations to destroy officials and, in other words, create your own fear in them to shake them down.

That also eliminates massive collaterals that affect the long run.

Paq · 09-09-2004, 12:45 AM

i know i normally pop in with pithy comments, etc, but honestly, this is truly frightening and something i feared the INSTANT the US attacked a country on a pre-emptive strike basis...

Seriously, how long will it take before a country just starts bombing/attacking first and asking questions later? Mark these words...this is bad, very bad.. I'm not saying the russians are wrong here, but just imagine if every country follows suit...It's almost as if the US has just given the world a reason to start a war with whomever it deems a threat at that particular time...That truly scares me.

back to your scheduled programming

The Phenomenon · 09-09-2004, 02:02 AM

This sounds to me to another excuse for Russia to lash out at Checnyans. And that, after this incident was a lashing out at Russia by Checnyans.

Its a vicious circle and its gonna get even more ugly.

Thats right you morons, FUEL THE FIRE.

Fire · 09-09-2004, 02:22 AM

the world is changing- things are not gonna be what they were, and lots of people are going to die for no good reason- the major powers are now targets- more and more, extremeists and seperatists are figuring out that they cannot hope to win a military victory against the big guys, even a guerilla one- so they are turning to terrorism as a way to sting whoever they dislike in a big way- and terrorism is just the thing that the major powers are not equipt to fight- they cannot effectively see something on as small a scale as most terror ops happen on, so they lash out, like a giant swinging at a hornet- naturaly, anything in the area of the hornet gets smashed too- this is how I see it being for at least the next decade, maybe longer..... and it is not a pretty picture to look at, as it has no obvious ending, just a dragging on of death and hatred.......

roachboy · 09-09-2004, 06:40 AM

i agree that this looks like a page from the strategic pamphlet that guides bushworld...for a big mess you need a big response: frame the attack as an assault on the unity of the nation, make it as difficult as possible to think in other terms about the fiasco at the origin---then, if the bushworld pattern holds, attack an irrelevant place, then follow it with another irrelevant place. what matters is the fact of the response, not the logic of it or the objective. a big response is therapeutic. it still has effects--people still support bushwar for that reason.

in both cases, the last thing you want is a public that actually thinks about why such attacks might have happened. putin does not want a public that links russian brutalization of the chechyns with this attack--that brings up the old chickens coming home to roost scenario, and that is bad business for the Leader. movement, momentum, distraction---deaths far away are a small price to pay for keeping a small minded authoritarian in power. worked in the states. putin is not a fool. you go woth the proven technique.

MSD · 09-10-2004, 08:31 AM

After thinking some more, this sounds disconcertingly like Putin testing the waters and hinting at a total invasion of Chechnya.

Mephisto2 · 09-10-2004, 06:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrSelfDestruct

After thinking some more, this sounds disconcertingly like Putin testing the waters and hinting at a total invasion of Chechnya.

Erm... they've done that twice already. Grozny has effectively been destroyed.

http://users.westnet.gr/~cgian/grozny.htm

I could post hundreds more, but it's too depressing.

Mr Mephisto

powerclown · 09-10-2004, 06:20 PM

Pretty grim pictures...and they lost, as well.
No one ever said the Russians were particularly skilled warriors.

Dragonlich · 09-10-2004, 09:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by powerclown

Pretty grim pictures...and they lost, as well.
No one ever said the Russians were particularly skilled warriors.

Actually, I believe many Germans (during WW2) would stronly disagree with that statement.

The Russians have a hard time fighting against small groups of guerrilla fighters, just like any big army has a hard time fighting them. You need a whole hearts-and-minds campaign to erode support for these fighters, and Russia isn't doing that at all. The only option now is the total destruction of the Chechen people and anyone that supports them, and that's not going to happen (I hope).

aKula · 09-11-2004, 05:33 AM

The long drawn out nature of the war, encourages the turn to islamic fundemantalist influenced actions. The objective of libertating Chechnya remains a national one, hence I don't see this as international terrorism.

Dragonlich · 09-11-2004, 06:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aKula

The long drawn out nature of the war, encourages the turn to islamic fundemantalist influenced actions. The objective of libertating Chechnya remains a national one, hence I don't see this as international terrorism.

The annihilation of moderate rebels in the past led to the rise of fundamentalism. Furthermore, given the international support (monetary and physical) given to the Chechens makes this an international conflict. If Arab terrorists strike Russian schools over the war in Chechnya, how is that not international terrorism? The cause of the conflict may be national, but the conflict itself is growing more international by the day.

09-08-2004, 02:58 PM	#3 (permalink)
tecoyah Illusionary	Guess he has taken a page out of the U.S strategic military reference guide. I was wondering how long it would take for someone to justify attacks based on our lead. __________________ Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha

09-08-2004, 03:45 PM	#5 (permalink)
Mephisto2 Junkie	Add Russia to the list of countries helping militant fundamentalist countries develop nuclear power. The Russians will never pass up an opportunity to make strategic gains at America's expense. Mr Mephisto Last edited by Mephisto2; 09-08-2004 at 03:47 PM.. Reason: spelling

09-08-2004, 05:05 PM	#9 (permalink)
ShaniFaye Submit to me, you know you want to Location: Lilburn, Ga	Thank you for making me feel better Mr Mephisto...I was honestly afraid of making that post __________________ *I want the diabetic plan that comes with rollover carbs. I dont like the unused one expiring at midnite!!*

09-09-2004, 12:45 AM	#12 (permalink)
Paq Junkie Location: South Carolina	i know i normally pop in with pithy comments, etc, but honestly, this is truly frightening and something i feared the INSTANT the US attacked a country on a pre-emptive strike basis... Seriously, how long will it take before a country just starts bombing/attacking first and asking questions later? Mark these words...this is bad, very bad.. I'm not saying the russians are wrong here, but just imagine if every country follows suit...It's almost as if the US has just given the world a reason to start a war with whomever it deems a threat at that particular time...That truly scares me. back to your scheduled programming __________________ Live. Chris

09-09-2004, 02:22 AM	#14 (permalink)
Fire Warrior Smith Location: missouri	the world is changing- things are not gonna be what they were, and lots of people are going to die for no good reason- the major powers are now targets- more and more, extremeists and seperatists are figuring out that they cannot hope to win a military victory against the big guys, even a guerilla one- so they are turning to terrorism as a way to sting whoever they dislike in a big way- and terrorism is just the thing that the major powers are not equipt to fight- they cannot effectively see something on as small a scale as most terror ops happen on, so they lash out, like a giant swinging at a hornet- naturaly, anything in the area of the hornet gets smashed too- this is how I see it being for at least the next decade, maybe longer..... and it is not a pretty picture to look at, as it has no obvious ending, just a dragging on of death and hatred....... __________________ Thought the harder, Heart the bolder, Mood the more as our might lessens

09-08-2004, 02:53 PM	#2 (permalink)
MSD The sky calls to us ... Super Moderator Location: CT	I think that caution should be exercised, and evidence should be presented before any pre-emptive strike and discussed among foreign intelligence experts before taking drastic action. The Russian government is still bitter about their loss of control over former Soviet Republics, and discussing plans beforehand will give their actions more legitimacy than a unilateral attack, and prevent the appearance of being a spoiled kid who's lashing out because he lost his toys. Attacking terrorists/separatists/whatever you want to call them in order to prevent attacks on civilians is acceptable, but is not a decisinon that should be taken lightly.

09-08-2004, 03:25 PM	#4 (permalink)
powerclown Junkie Location: Detroit, MI	Add Russia to the list of allies in the war against militant islamic fundamentalism. The Russians will never forget, or forgive, this tragedy.

09-08-2004, 04:49 PM	#7 (permalink)
Mephisto2 Junkie	Bingo! You're absolutely right Shani. That's one of the worrying things I wanted to highlight. And that's why the US is supporting Russia on this. In better times, the US would be criticising Russia for its Chechnya policy, but in today's terribly changed world, things seem to have gone topsy-turvy. It's sad that the world's two most powerful nations have both been targets of extremist terrorism, and that they react in a short-sighted military manner rather than a more considered, engaging, long-term strategic manner with a view to treating the cause as well as the symptom. Mr Mephisto

09-09-2004, 02:02 AM	#13 (permalink)
The Phenomenon Psycho Location: I think my horns are coming out	This sounds to me to another excuse for Russia to lash out at Checnyans. And that, after this incident was a lashing out at Russia by Checnyans. Its a vicious circle and its gonna get even more ugly. Thats right you morons, FUEL THE FIRE.

09-09-2004, 06:40 AM	#15 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	i agree that this looks like a page from the strategic pamphlet that guides bushworld...for a big mess you need a big response: frame the attack as an assault on the unity of the nation, make it as difficult as possible to think in other terms about the fiasco at the origin---then, if the bushworld pattern holds, attack an irrelevant place, then follow it with another irrelevant place. what matters is the fact of the response, not the logic of it or the objective. a big response is therapeutic. it still has effects--people still support bushwar for that reason. in both cases, the last thing you want is a public that actually thinks about why such attacks might have happened. putin does not want a public that links russian brutalization of the chechyns with this attack--that brings up the old chickens coming home to roost scenario, and that is bad business for the Leader. movement, momentum, distraction---deaths far away are a small price to pay for keeping a small minded authoritarian in power. worked in the states. putin is not a fool. you go woth the proven technique. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

09-10-2004, 08:31 AM	#16 (permalink)
MSD The sky calls to us ... Super Moderator Location: CT	After thinking some more, this sounds disconcertingly like Putin testing the waters and hinting at a total invasion of Chechnya.

09-10-2004, 06:20 PM	#18 (permalink)
powerclown Junkie Location: Detroit, MI	Pretty grim pictures...and they lost, as well. No one ever said the Russians were particularly skilled warriors.

09-11-2004, 05:33 AM	#20 (permalink)
aKula Psycho	The long drawn out nature of the war, encourages the turn to islamic fundemantalist influenced actions. The objective of libertating Chechnya remains a national one, hence I don't see this as international terrorism.