Russian Missile Tests - Beginning of a new Cold War?
Aby June 1st, 2007
A few months back, Vladimir Putin, the President of Russian Federation expressed displeasure and apprehension over US military activities in the Eastern Europe which pointed towards a possible revival of tension between USA and Russia. The United States of America, under the leadership of George W. Bush dissolved all arms treaties with Russia including the ABM treaty which was the center stone for the prevention of a major war between Soviet Union and the United States. The act which was deemed as a ‘mistake’ by Vladimir Putin, showed the change of American stance which worsened the relationship between Russia and US after about a decade at attempts of peaceful co-existence by Boris Yelstin and Vladimir Putin.
The RS 24 missile test by Russia on May 29, 2007 (Click on video to play)
The repeated signs of US disregard for Russia’s interests and their tendency to interfere in the internal affairs of Russia ended up with Putin resuming the arms race of the Cold War era. This culminated into the missile tests of May 30, 2007 which caused a shock to Anglo-US countries and their allies. The tests of the new multi-warheaded ICBM, the RS-24 sent a strong message to the United States that Russia is still a military might and its national sovereignty cannot be taken for granted despite the end of Cold War. Russia’s resurgence after its crisis of 1990s also marked a start which could neutralise the present unipolar world (on the receiving end of US aggression) with a bi- or tri- polar world which brings a balance of military power. This could save the world from the imminent threat of neo-imperialism of United States, a nation which has shown a tendency to disregard national integrity and sovereignty of countries which do not agree with its agenda.
No country in the world likes to be taken for granted and its interests threatened by other nations, especially when its national security is under threat. Russia is no exception to it yet instead of an aggressive military intervention it sought diplomatic resolution of the issue for months. It fell into deaf years and Russians realised that it is futile to expect co-operation from US, a country which uses war rather than diplomacy to solve disputes. The Russian stance as of current has widespread support of the Russian people who have felt the bias of the western nations against their country, race and anything to do with Russia. This alienated them and caused them to back Vladimir Putin who unlike George Bush is highly popular in his country.
The result of all this is another arms race and Cold War like period of tension which could drain the world resources if a Cold War like armament occurs. It would also risk a high level of nuclear proliferation on the level of Cold War games by United States and Soviet Union which would threaten global peace and security.
More on the missile tests and background developments -
- Russian Missile Test Adds to Arms race Fears - The Guardian
- US Admits It Interferes With Russia’s Internal Affairs - Pravada
- America withdraws from ABM treaty - BBC World
Possibly Related posts:
- Russian Oil Games In The Arctic Shelf
- Europe In The Light of Resurgent Russia
- Intercontinental SLBMs - Russian Bulava vs American Trident
- The Death of Litvinenko - Britain’s Tryst With Russia
- China vs United States: Nuclear Arms Race
- Internationalism , Military , World Politics
- Comments(22)
Loading ...
[...] got bored and went for a break, only to re-emerge fresh and energised a few years later with the recent missile tests a few days back on March, [...]
I would disagree with you that Russia sought a diplomatic solution that “fell on deaf ears.” The US had offered Russian participation in the missile shield to prove that it was not targeted against Russians, but the offer was refused. Additionally, as you point out, Russia has tons of missiles. So many missiles, the shield would be useless against an attack from Russia, so I really don’t understand the strong Russian aversion to the missile shield. Although, I do understand the issues with the ABM treaty (but it may be time to move past that era anyway and it was within the treaty to allow for withdrawal) and with the internal interference. America is probably at a much greater risk of a rouge attack than most other countries, so I think the shield is a good idea. I just wish Russians would not see a defensive item as so offensive.
I have a poll up at my website: Do you think that the missile shield and the missile tests indicate a new cold war between the US and Russia?
The missile shield to be built on Eastern Europe is more political and military and despite Putin’s emphasise on the fact, America’s stance remained unchanged. My little question, how many rogue nations in the world have ballistic missiles that can target and strike Europe? The installation of ABM shields in Eastern Europe is an attempt by USA to display its political influence in Europe and bring countries like France, Germany, Russia into the United State’s political and diplomatic domination, ultimately paving way to set up American military bases in EU. As a former KGB agent, Vladimir Putin understands the rule of this diplomatic chess game and he knows how the game is being twisted against the national interests of sovereign nations like Russia, France, etc. He wouldn’t have a country like USA undermine Russia’s sovereignty and diplomacy..
My little question, how many rogue nations in the world have ballistic missiles that can target and strike Europe?
My question: How many will have that capability in five to ten years? I don’t know and neither do you. I do know that one should not wait to start building a boat until after the flood rains start. Your mentioning chess strengthens my argument… you should should always be thinking a few more moves ahead of the current situation.
I would certainly call myself a friend of Russia’s as you can imagine from my website, but this is one area where we disagree. I am in favor of allowing Russia to participate; I am in favor of considering alternative locations; I am in favor of lots of things… including a missile shield because everyone seems to want to join the nuclear club these days. Not only does it protect against a rouge nation but also an unauthorized or accidental launch. Thank of the missile shield as airbags and non-proliferation work as the seatbelt. Both are a good idea.
For a “different” argument… the entire world may be much better off if the US is protected by a missile shield. Think of the Iraq response post 9/11 (which Britain assisted in I must point out) and then imagine what the US response might be if a nation attacked the US with a nuclear weapon. Oh-oh!
By the way… Why do you post the country of origin next to each comment? It seems like a good way to force the reader to prejudice the comment before even reading it.
“My question: How many will have that capability in five to ten years? I don’t know and neither do you.”
If the ABM defence of today is built on a 5 - 10 year foresight of enemy then it would make lesser sense still. For by the time the enemy makes such missiles they may well MIRV it and make current ABM systems pretty useless.
“Your mentioning chess strengthens my argument… you should should always be thinking a few more moves ahead of the current situation.”
Strategy would take risk factors into consideration. The chances of Iran or North Korea striking Poland and Czechoslovakia is low to remote. If missile attacks by rogue nations is such a concern, the most important considerations would have been securing Frankfurt, Berlin, Munich, Athens, etc. which are economic hotspots and are in more danger of attacks than Prague or Warsaw. The selection of Eastern Europe is ominous if not suspicious and I doubt a man like Putin would take a security measure as a sign of American dominance.
“Your mentioning chess strengthens my argument… you should should always be thinking a few more moves ahead of the current situation.”
An accidental launch of a missile would be near to impossible unless the ‘accident’ is intended. I could be wrong however.
“For a “different” argument… the entire world may be much better off if the US is protected by a missile shield. Think of the Iraq response post 9/11 (which Britain assisted in I must point out) and then imagine what the US response might be if a nation attacked the US with a nuclear weapon. Oh-oh!”
I agree here, so there isn’t much argument. If Moscow and Beijing can set up ABM shields to protect themselves, so could New York, D.C. or any other major US city. But setting up the shields right next to US military bases in Russia’s neighbours does not really count as America’s national defences.
“By the way… Why do you post the country of origin next to each comment? It seems like a good way to force the reader to prejudice the comment before even reading it.”
That is a feature of the statistics software, I believe. We have no prejudice intended, apologies if it caused you to be in the receiving end of such prejudice. I will talk to Dmitri and see if we could override this feature or make it possible for reader to post comments without revealing their country.
Good point about the MIRVs. Please tell the Russians to not sell the technology to the Iranians.
Did you see this graphic? It shows good coverage of Europe in addition to being in the path of missiles flying toward the US. As far as I understand it is designed to protect Europe also. Although, the map also shows part of the reason that the Russians are against it. That is why I was hoping the invitation for Russians to join the program would eliminate some of those fears and the resistance.
I agree that accidental launch is unlikely, but rather I was thinking of non-government sanctioned launches. For example, in places like Iran (if they obtain nuclear missiles) it is possible that there could be a terrorist launch. A couple of radical insiders and a some well armed militants might be able to pull off the ultimate terrorist attack.
The U.S action on missile defence in Eastern Europe is not at all acceptable. Why can’t the Americans construct their missile defence on
their own soil? Their main aim is to bring up their military bases in East Europe in the name of missile shield. The Russian missile ‘Topol’ is capable of penertating any defence shield in the world and the Americans are well aware of it. So even if they spend millions of dollars on this project it would be of no use. If there is going to be another cold war, its going to be because of America.
You just answered your own question. We are well aware that we could never stop all of the Russian missiles just like you can’t stop ours. It can however stop one or two missiles from a less advanced country, so whats the problem?
@ericoak - The problem is the poltical and military implications on Russia’s national security by building bases and missile shields close to its territory. As Aby said, how many countries apart from Russia and China have missiles capable of striking USA? It is an attempt to start subjugate Russia, what with the dissolution of the ABM treaty and the repeated attempts by George Bush to throw slime at Russia’s political system
Focus on facts- No “rogue” country would attack the USA first! unless Ahmadi Nijad wants Iran wiped off the face of the world!
Then, North Korea freezed its nuclear program. Plus, no matter what new shield America erects to protect itself from the Russian missiles, its not going to help! It is immposible to win a nuclear war! America is trying to show to the world that Russia is nothing, they cant resist anymore, by placing the shield in eastern europe! If America wanted to cooperate what about the Russian offer to use the Gabala radar station in Azerbaijan? it is much more effective than that americans want to build in chezc republic! Plus America is not only advancing its Nuclear forces, what about the conventional forces in europe treaty? that was ratified only by Russia, Ukraine and kazakhstan! It was the right action to pull out of the treaty i my opinion. Plus if America will stop creating enemies with its aggressive policy maybe there wont be a need a for a shield at all! America must understand that you cant build Democracy after destroying half of the country and killing thousands of people like they are trying to do in Iraq. I have nothing against America, or its people, I agree that America is the most powerful country in world at the moment, but with all due respect to Mr. Bush, he doesnt know what he is doing! You cant prosper while turning all of the world against yourself. Unless you want to live in a shielded box afraid to move out. What happened to the values of Democracy? Human rights? Whats happening at Guantanamo?
We know that neither America or Russia can safeguard themselves fully in case of nuclear war and hence why is that the United States is unnecessarily creating tension in the Europe by planning to instal missile defence system? Russia has made it clear that their missiles would be targetted against some countries in the Europe if the U.S goes forward with the planned missile shield. So its really a serious situation which has almost taken us to the cold war days. Russia is no longer a weak country and hence the U.S should respect the Russian concerns in this issue and avoid any further confrontation.
I don’t understand… You don’t develop complex technological systems to deal with current threats, you build them for future threats. A small anti-missile shield is no threat to Russian national security. However, it took 22 years to develop the F-22, it takes a long time to develop these things. It appears you are looking for an excuse to cause trouble when we merely want more assured protection from a smaller less stable nations.
@ ericoak - I will not bore with with the technicalities of aerospace and radar interception considering you seem to be a lay person on military technology or political strategy. In short and simple terms, if the missile shield is deployed in Czechoslovakia and Poland, the field of the radar waves would invade Russian airspace which is determinable to Russian security. If the US were to pursue the ABM shield jointly with Russia, for instance in Azerbaijan, both sides would have been winners (in case the actual US objective is to prevent missile attacks from rogue states). But considering US reluctance to accept this alternative win-win idea, one wonders what the real motive is. Add to this the minor stage of Iran’s missile program for such a massive ABM deployment and also the futility of US ABM systems against future missile systems which will most likely have more lethal MIRV capabilities.
If you choose to be objective and shed the nationalist American stance perhaps this news piece would help you understand it better. It takes out all the technical jargon so that a layman could understand and it comes from BBC, a global authoritative news agency.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6729751.stm
According to Global Research, Center for Research on Globalization, having an operational missile defense shield would enable the United States to launch a nuclear first strike against Russia, effectively eliminating 90%+ of Russian nuclear arsenal. What little retaliatory strike capability would be left could easily be handled by the ABM shield. This would, in effect, put the U.S. in a position of nuclear primacy, what some interesting American (can’t remember his name, sorry) coined with the “policy of compellance” as opposed to the “policy of deterrence”. Given the fact that the United States remains the only country to have ever used nuclear weapons in war, I do not believe that this analysis is too far off.
What about you folks?
I would keep miles away from such dubious claims if I were you, especially as it is very far fetched and unrealistic and tends to demonise the whole nation of America. Over 44% of Russia’s active nuclear arsenal is based on mobile (Topol M), submarine (Skiff and Stingray) and hardened silos (Voevoda) which cannot be eliminated in a first strike. One has to dry up oceans, burn down all forests and dig up a whole country to possible find all of these mobile missiles.
Furthermore ABM systems are not very useful for protecting against MIRVs on a whole country, particularly when one does not know where the MIRVs might strike. Missile defence systems are effective only against countries with a small and unsophisticated arsenal. It leaves a lot to chance, unless a breakthrough mind reading technology comes around, neither Russia nor US would be mad to try a first strike. I could only assume that the claim is made by someone using doomsday conspiracy theories rather than basing it on realistic and fact based evidences. I hope you could post the link so that my assumptions can be confirmed.
I am not making any claims, whatsoever. I just restated in somewhat of a summary of the article available on Global Research, and it does include various Putin statement attesting to this result. Unless my interpretation is slighted, I believe the idea of the article was to show that a nuclear first strike would eliminate most of Russian nuclear weapons and the missile defense would take care of whatever small retaliatory capability that wasn’t destroyed.
I only recited the idea already in existence and maybe it is flawed, but given the desire of the United States to wage wars and the reasons behind it, I do not think this would be too far out.
Go to Global Research; see for yourself. Then, we can talk.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=5935
I did not make any claims, whatsoever. I only paraphrased the key note in the article in question.
russia are buffin just like the cold war us technology kills any russian ballistic missile when it comes to cold wars russia has an eye for cheap weapons and real war destroyed ussr.
Interesting. Perhaps getting re-acquainted with reality is on the to-do list? Where is your claim coming from?
A very old posts.. but as like aby and others say… A first strike wont be able to wipe out any of the mobile Silos… and the AB
The U.S is pushing the Russians into another cold war like situation by
its planned missile defence shield at Poland and Checz republic.
By doing so, the U.S is also going to divide Europe as it did in the past.
Even after the end of Cold war we see the U.S military bases coming up
at many places across the globe in the name of war against terror. Russia is
a great nuclear power and hence their concerns on U.S missile shield should
not be put aside by the U.S. The American government also should stop preaching
other countries on Democracy and stop behaving like a Police. The world is not
unipolar anymore.
Russia should deploy an ABM in Venezuela and Cuba, then. Maybe the threat to them is from Mexico?
* CHUCKLE *