I don't know why, but the threat of nuclear war does not seem nearly as scary as it did during the days of the cold war. Perhaps it is because there are so many other threats to our continued existence that this is just another to add to the list.

Russia threatens nuclear attack on Poland over US missile shield deal

Russia threatened a nuclear strike against Poland after a landmark deal to site American global anti-missile shields in the country.

By Harry de Quetteville and Andrew Pierce
Last Updated: 8:41PM BST 15 Aug 2008

Gen. Anatoly Nogovitsyn: Russia's nuclear rethoric marks an intense new phase in the war of words over Georgia Photo: AP
Only 24 hours after the weapons agreement was signed Russia's deputy chief of staff warned Poland "is exposing itself to a strike 100 per cent".
General Anatoly Nogovitsyn said that any new US assets in Europe could come under Russian nuclear attack with his forces targeting "the allies of countries having nuclear weapons".
He told Russia's Interfax news agency: "By hosting these, Poland is making itself a target. This is 100 per cent certain. It becomes a target for attack. Such targets are destroyed as a first priority."
Russia's nuclear rhetoric marks an intense new phase in the war of words over Georgia. The Caucasus conflict has spiralled into a Cold War style confrontation between Moscow and Washington in less than a week.
The stand off between the two cold War powers was underlined by Russian president Dmitry Medvedev, who dismissed US claims that the silo is a deterrent against 'rogue states' like Iran as "a fairy tale". He told reporters at the Black Sea resort of Sochi: "The deployment of new missile defence facilities in Europe is aimed against the Russian Federation."
President George W. Bush in a brief but pointed statement earlier in the day said: "The Cold War is over… Bullying and intimidation are not acceptable ways to conduct foreign policy in the 21st century."
Mr Bush, who is demanding an immediate withdrawal of Russian troops from Georgia now that that a ceasefire deal has been signed, added: "Only Russia can decide whether it will now put itself back on the path of responsible nations or continue to pursue a policy that promises only confrontation and isolation,"
Russia's deteriorating relationship with the West was strained further when US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice yesterday visited Georgian capital Tbilisi and concluded a ceasefire deal with Russia. It was the highest profile gesture of American political support for Georgia's embattled government since the conflict began.
Echoing President Bush's demands for a withdrawal from Georgia, she evoked the Soviet-led invasion of Czechoslovakia 40 years ago. "Russian forces need to leave Georgia at once. This is no longer 1968,"she said.
Mikheil Saakashvili, the Georgian president, who was standing next to Miss Rice, said: "We were screaming to the world that Russia was going to do this...We are looking evil directly in the eye - this evil is very dangerous not only for us but for everybody."
Even as he was speaking a convoy of 17 Russian armoured personnel carriers was spotted advancing along the main highway to within 34 miles of the Georgian capital Tblisi, their deepest move yet inside the country.
The Foreign Office also condemned Russia. A spokesman said: "Threats such as these against our EU and Nato Allies are completely unacceptable and unhelpful, especially at the present time''.
The criticism was echoed by MPs, who warned of the potential for a major escalation in the diplomatic crisis.
But there was no word from either Gordon Brown or David Miliband, the Foreign Secretary, on the nuclear issue, who were earlier both criticised for not speaking out sooner over the situation in Georgia.
David Cameron, the Tory leader, will today seize the initiative by travel to Georgia, where he is expected to warn Russia to respect its neighbour's territorial integrity.
Poland and the United States reached the agreement, after 18 months of negotiation, on siting 10 interceptor missiles capable of destroying incoming long-range ballistic missiles. Washington says the system, which would be installed by 2012, is designed to protect the US and its allies from "rogue states" such as Iran. The threat of nuclear reprisals were motivated by Moscow's fears the missile shield makes Russia a target of the United States.
Radek Sikorski, the Polish foreign minister, told The Daily Telegraph the new US missile shield deal, and its timing, was unrelated to Georgia. "It [the deal] is a coincidence," he said. "Georgia made a dramatic backdrop to it, but the timing had nothing to do with Georgia. We have offered Russia the right to inspect at any time. It only has the capabilities we say it does, which is to say, nothing to do with Russia."
Donald Tusk, the Polish prime minister, hinted that the US had pledged to back Warsaw in the event of Russian aggression towards Poland. He said that he only agreed to host the US defence shield on the condition that the US agreed to help augment Poland's defences with Patriot missiles, which are intended to ward off any threat from Russia. "We have crossed the Rubicon," he said.

Russia threatens nuclear attack on Poland over US missile shield deal - Telegraph
[Rep]

The West backed away from supporting Georgia's membership of NATO and Russia has taken advantage of that fact.

Now it is putting pressure on Poland. If Poland backs down then effectively we will see the gradual 'Finlandisation' of the former Soviet satellites where none are allowed to step out of line with Moscow's wishes. These incremental steps now must be resisted if we are to avoid another Cold War scenario.

The lead story in The Economist is headlined 'Russia resurgent'. Some on this forum hate the West so much that they may even welcome this prospect. If it becomes another Soviet-style empire, bullying its neighbours into submission, we are in for some bleak years ahead.
[Rep]

I think the biggest problem US & Britain have is that it is difficult to take the moral high ground after the invasion of Iraq.
[Rep]

Originally Posted by Millennium3:
I think the biggest problem US & Britain have is that it is difficult to take the moral high ground after the invasion of Iraq.

On the contrary, I see that as morally right. Tactically there were many mistakes but it was a morally right cause.

But back to Russia, I don't think Russia will be worrying too much about the moral high ground.

I am reminded of Stalin's cynical question when it was suggested that the Soviet Union should seek to win the support of the Catholic Church: "How many divisions has the Pope?"
[Rep]

It saddens me to read here, and particularly in the media,all the jingoistic claptrap that preceded The Great War, WWII, and now Russia.

Georgia was part of the Russian Empire (both Imperial and Soviet) until very very recently. As long ago as 1812 the Georgian Prince Bagration served (and died) as a commander in the Tsarist Army against Napoleon. My view is they should not have been given independence at all but autonomy within Russia.

I find it difficult to believe that anyone thinks that the world has been a better place since the deliberate (US-sponsored) break-up of the three great Empires in Europe. Since that happened we have effectively seen the Balkanisation of Europe proper, with every little bunch of people wanting their own cave and backyard and then fighting all their neighbours. There has been nothing but destabilisation and distress, war, pillage and death.

After screwing up Europe at Versailles, the Americans departed and left the French to sew the seeds of discord against the Germans, who, contrary to what people in Britain seem to understand, have invaded them far more times than the Germans had ever been in France. The French armed and financed Poland and Czecho-Slovakia to vast extents and excouraged them to be belligerent. Now we see the USA taking their place not, this time, against the Germans or Austro-Hungarians, but against Russia.

This is not the way forward at all. Surely all these stupid alliances, in the past, did not prevent conflict but instead made conflict fantastically worse and dragged everyone in.

Communism, a bankrupt and murderous philosophy, imploded in Russia. But the Russians and, indeed, all Slavs, have always been robustly nationalistic, even under communism, and it is a great mistake now for anyone in the West to attempt to interfere in the internal afffairs of Russia. It is shockingly provocative for the imbecilic Americans to place missiles along the Russian border. How would we like it if France and the Low Countries permitted Russia or another power to line the Channel costs with missile bases aimed at us?

Havn't we had enough of the USA in Europe? Many would say the entire world has had enough of them and their blundering, infantile, and Wild West approach to Foreign Affairs. It is laughable for George Bush to now be postulating about nations' sovereignties.

We are now too small a country to be tagging along with the USA trying to play big world power. We simply are not. Moreover, we are a small island and a first class target for any well-armed country. Where once they would have had to wipe out an entire Empire to eliminate Great Britain now they only have a small island to deal with. It would be too easy and people need to sit back and say: now is the time to become 100% neutral.
[Rep]

Originally Posted by Unionist:
On the contrary, I see that as morally right. Tactically there were many mistakes but it was a morally right cause.

I think you are part of a dwindling minority - the general view is that they used 9/11 as an excuse to invade for the oil. No satisfactory proof has been shown with regard to their nuclear programme.

It was the US that started the recent fashion for invading other sovereign nations for tactical or resource purposes. How can they criticize the Russians for joining in.

I can see that if you view the Iraq invasion as justified then you will take a different view on the Russians invasion.
[Rep]

Originally Posted by Millennium3:
I can see that if you view the Iraq invasion as justified then you will take a different view on the Russians invasion.

I'm not sure what you mean there. I support Georgia as a pro-Western democratic state that is no threat to its neighbours. South Ossetia is recognised around the world as legally part of Georgia, of course.

The Russian action to protect 'its citizens' is a fake. Most of them were not Russian citizens until recently anyway.

I don't see how the two cases are comparable at all.

There is an interesting article from an informed commentator writing in The New Republic. An excerpt:

This conflict did not appear out of the blue. We have known for some time that the Russians had plans for regime change in Georgia. Over two years ago, a senior Western official told me that President Putin was already looking into executing such a strategy. We have seen the Russian policy of pressuring Georgia unfold in front of our eyes. We have watched the Russian military exercise for an invasion. One only had to read the Russian press, follow the Russian debate, and talk to senior Russian officials to know that they were spoiling for a fight with Georgia. When a close European friend of mine told a senior Russian official in late July that he was planning to visit Georgia in September, the response was that he might want to go sooner and that September might be too late. It was.

[Rep]

Certainly because the US was otherwise engaged militarily, they did take their eye off the ball. However, because the invasion of Georgia had been planned for sometime does not negate my view that the invasion of Iraq did change the rules for superpowers - the Iraq invasion was more than 5 years ago.
[Rep]

No, Russia has been asserting itself aggressively for reasons entirely unrelated to Iraq.

Georgia is hardly a comparable case with Saddam's Iraq. Where is the long list of UN resolutions condemning Georgia and demanding action? Where is the evidence of Georgia's aggression towards its neighbours or tyranny over its own people?

Russia is seeking to re-establish its former standing in the world and dominance over its neighbours which it lost with the collapse of the Soviet Union. Friendly gestures from the West have not done anything to stop the Russians so far.

But let us suppose that we accept your view that the West has lost its moral authority. What do you propose that we do in that case - roll over and let the Russians dominate Eastern Europe once more? That would be, to my mind, the ultimate loss of moral authority.
[Rep]

Originally Posted by Unionist:
No, Russia has been asserting itself aggressively for reasons entirely unrelated to Iraq.

Georgia is hardly a comparable case with Saddam's Iraq. Where is the long list of UN resolutions condemning Georgia and demanding action? Where is the evidence of Georgia's aggression towards its neighbours or tyranny over its own people?

Russia is seeking to re-establish its former standing in the world and dominance over its neighbours which it lost with the collapse of the Soviet Union. Friendly gestures from the West have not done anything to stop the Russians so far.

But let us suppose that we accept your view that the West has lost its moral authority. What do you propose that we do in that case - roll over and let the Russians dominate Eastern Europe once more? That would be, to my mind, the ultimate loss of moral authority.

I think it will take some time to re-establish working relations with Russia.

Richard North recommended this from the Wall Street Journal - I think he is probably right - along with the other isolating actions which are already being taken.

Free Trade Can Fight Terror - WSJ.com
[Rep]