Ok. Lets keep this civil and hopefully it will stay open longer then the previous on on this subject. Once again it looks like the Russian/Georgian conflict was the last straw.

US, Poland sign missile shield deal amid Russian opposition
by Sylvie Lanteaume 6 minutes ago



WARSAW (AFP) - Warsaw and Washington signed a deal Wednesday to deploy a US missile shield in Poland, in the face of deep anger and threats of retaliation from Moscow.

"This will help us to deal with the new threats of the 21st century, of long-range missile threats from countries like Iran or from North Korea," said US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice shortly before inking the accord with Poland's Foreign Minister Radoslaw Sikorski.
The signing came amid heightened tensions between the United States and NATO, on the one hand, and Moscow on the other over Russia's conflict with pro-Western Georgia.
Rice sought to fend off the criticism saying: "Missile defence of course is aimed at no one. It is in our defence that we do this."
Later she told reporters: "It is not aimed in any way at Russia."
The United States plans to base 10 interceptor missiles in Poland -- plus a radar facility in the neighbouring Czech Republic -- between 2011 and 2013.
"I consider this (development) positive... It doesn't surprise me," Czech President Mirek Topolanek told journalists in Prague after a cabinet meeting as he welcomed the signing of the agreement in Warsaw.
Both former Soviet Bloc nations have been NATO members since 1999, and the missile shield will complete a system already in place in the United States, Greenland and Britain.
Russia rejects US arguments that the shield -- endorsed by all 26 NATO member states earlier this year -- is meant to fend off potential missile attacks by what Washington calls "rogue states".
Polish President Lech Kaczynski said the deal it was a sign of the crucial "strategic alliance" of Western nations.
"We have to remember that Western ... countries have certain values and principles in common," he said. "We have to stand up for these principles and we have to defend them."
Moscow views the shield as a security threat designed to undermine Russia's nuclear deterrent.
"We will be forced to respond to this adequately. The EU and US have been warned," Russian President Dmitry Medvedev said last month as the long-running missile talks moved to a close.
Last week the deputy head of Russia's General Staff, Anatoly Nogovitsyn, warned Poland was making itself a target "100 percent" by participating in the US programme.
Kaczynski hit back in a televised address Tuesday, saying: "Our neighbours should now understand that our nation will never give in, nor allow itself to be intimidated".
Both Warsaw and Prague have had rocky relations with Moscow since they broke free from the crumbling communist bloc in 1989, and ties have worsened since they joined NATO and then in 2004 the European Union.
US and Polish negotiators signed a preliminary deal in Warsaw last Thursday after 15 months of negotiations.

With Western relations with Moscow at their lowest ebb in years because of the Georgia conflict, there have been suggestions that the timing of the missile deal was no accident.
"Obviously, there is a certain environment you are operating in. You can't deny it," US negotiator John Rood said.
Rice said: "It is a difficult time but I think we shouldn't overstate the depth of the difficulties... The Cold War is over."
To calm Moscow's ire, Poland has offered to allow Russian inspections of the missile facilities.
Negotiations saw the United States accept Poland's demands for extra security guarantees to offset the potential risks of hosting the shield, including a Patriot missile air-defence system and greater military ties.
The missile plan foresees the deployment of several hundred US troops in Poland to service the shield facility and the Patriot missiles, which will gradually be turned over to the Poles once they have been trained to use them. Washington and Prague sealed the radar deal in July, but both accords must still be ratified by Polish and Czech parliaments.

US, Poland sign missile shield deal amid Russian opposition - Yahoo! News

__________________


For the first time I have seen "History" at close quarters,and I know that its actual process is very different from what is presented to Posterity. - WWI General Max Hoffman.

Interesting how when Russia doesn't get its way it has to threaten others with military action?

US, Poland OK missile defense base, riling Moscow
By VANESSA GERA and MONIKA SCISLOWSKA, Associated Press Writers Wed Aug 20, 6:09 PM ET


WARSAW, Poland - The United States and Poland signed a deal Wednesday to place a U.S. missile defense base just 115 miles from Russia — a move followed swiftly by a new warning from Moscow of a possible military response.
ADVERTISEMENT

For many Poles — whose country has been a staunch U.S. ally — the accord represented what they believed would be a guarantee of safety for themselves in the face of a newly assertive Russia.
Negotiators sealed the deal last week against a backdrop of Russian military action in Georgia, a former Soviet republic turned U.S. ally, that has worried former Soviet satellites across eastern Europe. It prompted Moscow's sharpest rhetoric yet over the system, which it contends is aimed at Russia despite Washington's insistence the site is purely defensive.
After Wednesday's signing, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice dismissed any suggestion the 10 missile defense interceptors — which Washington says are intended to defend Europe and the U.S. from the possible threat of long-distance missiles from Iran — represent a threat to Russia.
"Missile defense, of course, is aimed at no one," Rice said. "It is in our defense that we do this."
She denounced an earlier threat from a Russian general to target NATO member Poland, possibly even with nuclear weapons, for accepting the facility.
Such comments "border on the bizarre, frankly," Rice told reporters in Warsaw. "The Russians are losing their credibility," she said, adding that Moscow would pay a price for its actions in Georgia, though she did not specify how.
"It's also the case that when you threaten Poland, you perhaps forget that it is not 1988," Rice said. "It's 2008 and the United States has a ... firm treaty guarantee to defend Poland's territory as if it was the territory of the United States. So it's probably not wise to throw these threats around."
Poland has been a staunch U.S. ally in both Iraq and Afghanistan. It sent combat troops into Iraq as part of the U.S.-led coalition and had 2,300 troops deployed there at its peak. That has been reduced to about 900, who will be pulled out in October. At the same time, Poland has been building up its military presence in Afghanistan, where it currently has some 1,600 troops.
Hours after the signing, Russia's Foreign Ministry warned that Moscow's response would go beyond diplomacy. The system to be based in Poland lacks "any target other than Russian intercontinental ballistic missiles," it said in a statement, contending the U.S. system "will be broadened and modernized."
"In this case Russia will be forced to react, and not only through diplomatic" channels, it said without elaborating.
Democratic Rep. Ellen Tauscher, who leads a key appropriations panel for missile defense, praised the deal. But she said that Democratic lawmakers intend to withhold funding for the interceptors planned for Poland until they are properly tested, a move that could delay the deployment for years.
The deal follows an earlier agreement to place the second component of the missile defense shield — a radar tracking system — in the neighboring Czech Republic, another formerly communist country now in NATO.
"We have achieved our main goals, which means that our country and the United States will be more secure," Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk told Rice after the signing.
Many Poles agreed. "After what happened in Georgia, I believe that this is good protection for us," said Kazimierz Dziuba, 49, a hospital worker in Warsaw.
The Georgian conflict "made the Americans agree to this deal sooner because the Russians are getting too bossy," Dziuba said.
Not all Poles were happy, however.

Alina Kesek, an 82-year-old retired office clerk who lived through World War II, when Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union divided Poland between them, and then experienced four decades of Moscow-dominated communist rule, said the Patriot missiles were a "kind of provocation" toward Russia.
"This means a threat from the Russian side," said Kesek. "I am not very pleased with this deal."
Some residents in the northern Polish town of Redzikowo, where the missile defense facility will be located, fear it may expose them to retaliatory attacks or other dangers.
Along with the main deal, the two nations signed a so-called "declaration on strategic cooperation," which is to deepen their military and political partnership.
It includes a mutual commitment to come to each other's assistance immediately if one is under attack — enhancing existing obligations both have as NATO members.
The declaration also was accompanied by a promise from the U.S. to help modernize Poland's armed forces and to place a battery of Patriot missiles there by 2012.
Rice said the deal "will help both the alliance and Poland and the United States respond to the coming threats."
Poland and the United States spent a year and a half in formal talks, which snagged in the final phase on Poland's demands for the Patriot missiles and other points.
However, the deepening U.S.-Polish friendship dominated Wednesday's proceedings.
"In troubled times the most important thing is to have friends," Rice said. "But it is more important to have friends who share your values and your aspirations and your dreams. And Poland and the United States are those kind of friends." Approval for the missile defense sites is still needed from the Czech and Polish parliaments. No date has been set for lawmakers in Warsaw to vote, but the deal enjoys the support of the largest opposition party as well as of the government.

US, Poland OK missile defense base, riling Moscow - Yahoo! News

__________________


For the first time I have seen "History" at close quarters,and I know that its actual process is very different from what is presented to Posterity. - WWI General Max Hoffman.

It's a convergence of factors. The Russo-Georgian conflict demanded a retaliatory response and the Bush administration needs to commence construction on the Polish facility soon to help ensure that next year's administration (of either party) will have a harder time stopping the project.

I've read that Russia will respond by selling additional arms to Syria.

[Article deleted by myself as below the dignity of this forum. I apologise.]

__________________

LOL. Not bad for an OPINION piece LOL

__________________


For the first time I have seen "History" at close quarters,and I know that its actual process is very different from what is presented to Posterity. - WWI General Max Hoffman.

Cannot see how someone could see the article in Pravda as very professional and diplomatic. Seems like good ole cold war time "shouting, yelling and abusing" is back in businez....

How can you comment someone´s looks like that? The last time things were discussed this way it was Hitler´s and Himmler´s aryan looks....

__________________

Wondering about this one:

DEBKAfile - Iranian Early Warning Station, Anti-Air Base on Lebanese Peak

__________________

I admit it is bad indeed, but good old Pravda is no longer the respected voice of the Party,to be carefully scrutinised by the Sovietologists. It's only another populist ragsheet nowadays.

Indeed I should apologise for publishing such drivel, Kai. This is below your (or mine) level. I'll look up for something a bit more serious for next time.

__________________

No problem. I think it´s okay to show how certain levels deal with this matter, which is unfortunately below the belt. I am sure the writer of the article is a handsome aryan character and even when having a hangover looks fresh like a daffodil...

__________________

First time I hear on this one. I wouldn't put much trust on Debka, though...

Israel and Syria have been trying to start a détente process, there are opinions in Israel whereby even the Golan Heights can be returned to Syria, so that would be a very provocative move that would hardly be positive.

__________________

Behind America's shield
Aug 21st 2008
From The Economist print edition

A deal on missile defences angers Russia even though they may not work

THE east Europeans have little reason to fear a strike from Iran. So why are they eagerly signing up to America’s system to intercept Iranian missiles? Because they are scared of Russia. Within days of Russia’s invasion of Georgia, Poland had agreed to host ten American interceptors. Ukraine offered to link up its early-warning radars and contribute to surveillance in space. The Czech Republic had already agreed to host the missile-tracking radar.

“We have crossed the Rubicon,” said the Polish prime minister, Donald Tusk, as the deal was done. Russia said any country involved in America’s missile defences made itself a legitimate target for nuclear attack. Condoleezza Rice, the American secretary of state, who went to Poland to sign the deal this week, retorted that such threatening language “isn’t tolerable”.

Missile defences cannot fend off Russia’s huge arsenal, but countries hosting them place themselves under America’s umbrella, in effect becoming part of the defence of its homeland. American officials said the war in Georgia could have made further delay seem like surrender to Russia. But Mr Tusk offered another view: after Russia’s invasion, America at last accepted Polish demands for help in modernising its armed forces, and for the deployment of an American Patriot anti-aircraft (and anti-missile) battery in Poland.

Iran strengthened America’s case by boasting (apparently falsely) this week that it had tested a missile capable of launching satellites. Previously Iran claimed its missiles could reach targets as far away as Ukraine and the Balkans. But if it ever put objects into orbit, that would allow it to fire warheads a lot farther. The Kremlin still plays down the Iranian threat, and says America’s real objective is to neutralise Russia’s nuclear forces. America has invited the Russians to join in, to no avail.



Missile defences do not just pose a geopolitical risk that could worsen the West’s poor relations with Russia. They are also a technological gamble. The system is not fully proven. The two-stage interceptors that will be deployed in Europe have not been built yet, and the geometry of using ground interceptors against a future Iranian threat has still to be tested.

The Pentagon’s independent office to evaluate new equipment said last October that it was far from being able to certify “a high probability of [the system] working in an operationally effective manner once deployed”. It said intercepts of Iranian weapons were “very distinct” from past tests against simulated North Korean missiles over the Pacific, since shorter distances require a quicker response. The European system must also be able to deal with two kinds of missiles, intercontinental-range missiles fired at America and intermediate-range weapons fired at Europe, with different trajectories and speeds.

General Trey Obering, director of the Missile Defence Agency (MDA), calls Pentagon evaluators “very pessimistic”. He says the two-stage interceptor is a simplified version of the three-stage version used above the Pacific. The principles of missile defence differ little regardless of range. Yet critics insist that America is wasting a fortune for an impossible technological fix. It has spent more than $110 billion on missile defences since Ronald Reagan launched his “star wars” Strategic Defence Initiative 25 years ago, evoking an impossibly ambitious “shield that could protect us from nuclear missiles just as a roof protects a family from rain”. The new system is less ambitious, designed to fend off only a small number of missiles—but it will still cost as much as $10 billion a year.

The MDA is developing some 16 overlapping systems, designed to hit missiles in different phases of flight on the philosophy of “shoot early, shoot often”. The European system will try to intercept missiles in mid-course in space, where warheads separate. In several tests, the MDA has shown that it can “hit a bullet with a bullet” or even, in the words of General Obering, “hit a spot on a bullet”. In February an American ship shot down a spy satellite that had spun out of control.

But can the system be fooled by counter-measures? The lack of atmosphere in space means that missiles travel predictably, but it also means that decoys such as balloons move identically. How to identify a decoy dressed up as a warhead, or a warhead wrapped in a decoy? Critics such as Theodore Postol, of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, say this problem is insurmountable, however powerful the radars and other sensors. “It is like trying to find a bomb hidden in a pile of suitcases only by looking at them, without being able to shake them and without sniffer dogs,” he argues.

Not so, says Keith Englander, chief scientist at the MDA. Even in space there are “residual” effects that help to identify warheads. He says the system can already distinguish between warheads and balloons. It cannot yet handle more complex counter-measures, he admits, but these are harder to deploy than critics imagine.

Yet some criticisms have hit the mark. The MDA wants to develop new ways of watching a missile’s flight “from birth to death” to try to identify a warhead. And if it cannot spot the real target, it is developing interceptors with multiple “kill vehicles” to destroy decoys too. Besides, the critics have a big weakness: if missile defences were just expensive junk, why would the Russians protest so loudly?

__________________