Russia warns U.S. stepping up shield plans: agency

[Niels Bohr 72]

MOSCOW (Reuters) - Russia on Tuesday accused the United States of stepping up plans to install an anti-missile system in Europe, according to Interfax news agency.

The comments from Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov mark a sharper tone from Moscow after a series of conciliatory comments on U.S. plans to deploy elements of the system in Central Europe.

Moscow said it had hoped the administration of U.S. President Barack Obama would revise plans initiated under former President George W. Bush to construct the system and welcomed calls initiated by the U.S. side to "reset" relations.

"The U.S. has not revised its plans. I do not think that this could happen. On the contrary, we can see that work in missile defense has intensified, including in the NATO format," Ryabkov was quoted by Interfax as saying.

Washington says deployment of interceptor missiles to Poland and a radar system in the Czech Republic does not target Russia, but future potential attacks from countries like Iran.

The new U.S. administration has been less assertive in pushing the plan, insisting it would be reviewed for cost-effectiveness and viability, although Obama stood by the overall scheme during a speech in Prague earlier this month.

Ryabkov repeated Moscow's threat that if the United States does go ahead with the anti-missile system, that Russia will respond by placing its short-range Iskander missiles in the Kaliningrad enclave, nestled between NATO members Poland and Lithuania.

"Nobody has changed this position. I would only add that ... if there is no third phase (the European element of the anti-missile system), then there will be no Iskanders," Ryabkov told Interfax on Tuesday.

"We are not seeking to put them there. We really do not want to do that," Ryabkov was quoted as saying.

Ryabkov also criticized planned NATO exercises in Georgia next month, which Russian President Dmitry Medvedev last week said was "muscle-flexing" by the Western military alliance.

(Reporting by Conor Sweeney)

[GaryC 7]

The shield is a defensive weapon. I don't understand why Russia would pitch such a fit over it unless they want to preserve their first strike ability. If that is their goal then we must install it. They are in effect forcing us to put it in.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Probably. But I bet it doesn't look defensive from their part - any more than a Russian missile base on Cuba would to us.

[mawilson 2,133]

Probably. But I bet it doesn't look defensive from their part - any more than a Russian missile base on Cuba would to us.

A missile base is not quite the same as an anti-missile base now, is it?

[GaryC 7]

Probably. But I bet it doesn't look defensive from their part - any more than a Russian missile base on Cuba would to us.

I wouldn't mind if they put up a missile shield in Cuba. Let them!

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Probably. But I bet it doesn't look defensive from their part - any more than a Russian missile base on Cuba would to us.

A missile base is not quite the same as an anti-missile base now, is it?

Not quite no. But that assumes that we (and they) lay our cards on the table about what we're building and why.

So I don't doubt that an "anti-missile" base could appear to be a "missile" base from their perspective.

Probably. But I bet it doesn't look defensive from their part - any more than a Russian missile base on Cuba would to us.

I wouldn't mind if they put up a missile shield in Cuba. Let them!

Personally I think we should put a network of nukes into orbit and turn control over to the machines.

[GaryC 7]

Probably. But I bet it doesn't look defensive from their part - any more than a Russian missile base on Cuba would to us.

A missile base is not quite the same as an anti-missile base now, is it?

Not quite no. But that assumes that we (and they) lay our cards on the table about what we're building and why.

So I don't doubt that an "anti-missile" base could appear to be a "missile" base from their perspective.

With modern satellite recon it would be easy to tell the difference. Besides, I think we offered to allow the Russians to inspect the base.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Probably. But I bet it doesn't look defensive from their part - any more than a Russian missile base on Cuba would to us.

A missile base is not quite the same as an anti-missile base now, is it?

Not quite no. But that assumes that we (and they) lay our cards on the table about what we're building and why.

So I don't doubt that an "anti-missile" base could appear to be a "missile" base from their perspective.

With modern satellite recon it would be easy to tell the difference. Besides, I think we offered to allow the Russians to inspect the base.

Its still a threat though - from their perspective.

[GaryC 7]

Probably. But I bet it doesn't look defensive from their part - any more than a Russian missile base on Cuba would to us.

A missile base is not quite the same as an anti-missile base now, is it?

Not quite no. But that assumes that we (and they) lay our cards on the table about what we're building and why.

So I don't doubt that an "anti-missile" base could appear to be a "missile" base from their perspective.

With modern satellite recon it would be easy to tell the difference. Besides, I think we offered to allow the Russians to inspect the base.

Its still a threat though - from their perspective.

Why? If they know for sure it is defensive why would they see it as a threat?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Probably. But I bet it doesn't look defensive from their part - any more than a Russian missile base on Cuba would to us.

A missile base is not quite the same as an anti-missile base now, is it?

Not quite no. But that assumes that we (and they) lay our cards on the table about what we're building and why.

So I don't doubt that an "anti-missile" base could appear to be a "missile" base from their perspective.

With modern satellite recon it would be easy to tell the difference. Besides, I think we offered to allow the Russians to inspect the base.

Its still a threat though - from their perspective.

Why? If they know for sure it is defensive why would they see it as a threat?

Because "defense" is a subjective term and any sort of militarisation on/near a country's territory is regarded as an aggressive act.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Why? If they know for sure it is defensive why would they see it as a threat?

Vodka kills brain cells.

[GaryC 7]

Probably. But I bet it doesn't look defensive from their part - any more than a Russian missile base on Cuba would to us.

A missile base is not quite the same as an anti-missile base now, is it?

Not quite no. But that assumes that we (and they) lay our cards on the table about what we're building and why.

So I don't doubt that an "anti-missile" base could appear to be a "missile" base from their perspective.

With modern satellite recon it would be easy to tell the difference. Besides, I think we offered to allow the Russians to inspect the base.

Its still a threat though - from their perspective.

Why? If they know for sure it is defensive why would they see it as a threat?

Because "defense" is a subjective term and any sort of militarisation on/near a country's territory is regarded as an aggressive act.

BS. If you had a gun and I responded by buying a bullet proof vest the only reason you would see it as a threat is if you really wanted to shoot me.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Probably. But I bet it doesn't look defensive from their part - any more than a Russian missile base on Cuba would to us.

A missile base is not quite the same as an anti-missile base now, is it?

Not quite no. But that assumes that we (and they) lay our cards on the table about what we're building and why.

So I don't doubt that an "anti-missile" base could appear to be a "missile" base from their perspective.

With modern satellite recon it would be easy to tell the difference. Besides, I think we offered to allow the Russians to inspect the base.

Its still a threat though - from their perspective.

Why? If they know for sure it is defensive why would they see it as a threat?

Because "defense" is a subjective term and any sort of militarisation on/near a country's territory is regarded as an aggressive act.

BS. If you had a gun and I responded by buying a bullet proof vest the only reason you would see it as a threat is if you really wanted to shoot me.

You'd only be justified in buying a bullet proof vest if you were working under the assumption that I intend to shoot you. To me however - I might regard your buying the vest as prelude to your intending to shoot me.

Edited April 21, 2009 by Private Pike

[Niels Bohr 72]

Russia have a problem with trust.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

You'd only be justified in buying a bullet proof vest if you were working under the assumption that I intend to shoot you - and by extension that your buying the vest is a prelude to your intent to shoot me.