Putin Scared?

[SSJVegeta]

MUNICH, Germany (AP) -- Russian President Vladimir Putin blasted the United States Saturday for the "almost uncontained" use of force in the world, and for encouraging other countries to acquire nuclear weapons.

He also criticized U.S. plans for missile defense systems and NATO's expansion.

Putin told a security forum attracting top officials that "we are witnessing an almost uncontained hyper use of force in international relations" and that "one state, the United States, has overstepped its national borders in every way.

"This is very dangerous, nobody feels secure anymore because nobody can hide behind international law," Putin told the gathering.

Putin did not elaborate on specifics and did not mention the wars in Iraq or Afghanistan.

But he voiced concern about U.S. plans to build a missile defense system in eastern Europe -- likely in Poland and the Czech Republic -- and the expansion of NATO as possible challenges to Russia.

On the missile defense system, Putin said: "I don't want to accuse anyone of being aggressive" but suggested it would seriously change the balance of power and could provoke an unspecified response.

"That balance will be upset completely and one side will have a feeling of complete security and given a free hand in local, and probably in global, conflicts..." he said. "We need to respond to this."

"The process of NATO expansion has nothing to do with modernization of the alliance or with ensuring security in Europe," Putin said. "On the contrary, it is a serious factor provoking reduction of mutual trust."

Intervention dismissed

He also dismissed suggestions that the European Union and NATO had the right to intervene alone in crisis regions. "The legitimate use of force can only done by the United Nations, it cannot be replaced by EU or NATO," he said.

Putin's comments to a weekend forum attended by 250 officials, including Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Iranian nuclear negotiator Ali Larijani, came after German Chancellor Angela Merkel said that the international community is determined to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons.

Merkel said Tehran needed to accept demands made by the U.N. and the International Atomic Energy Agency.

"There is no way around this," Merkel said. "What we are talking about here is a very, very sensitive technology, and for that reason we need a high degree of transparency, which Iran has failed to provide, and if Iran does not do so then the alternative for Iran is to slip further into isolation."

Merkel, whose country holds the rotating European Union presidency, emphasized the international community's support for Israel and said there was a unified resolve to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons.

"We are determined to prevent the threat posed by an Iranian military nuclear program," she said.

The annual Munich Conference on Security Policy, now in its 43rd year, is often used as an opportunity for officials to conduct diplomacy in an informal setting.

Some 3,500 police were on hand to provide tight security for the conference and kept the usual throng of demonstrators away. This year, several thousand protesters were expected, protest organizers said.

Heading in to the conference, Larijani, who is scheduled to speak on Sunday, said he planned to use the conference as an opportunity to talk about Iran's nuclear program. Those would be the first talks with Western officials since limited U.N. sanctions were imposed on the country in December, which fell short of harsher measures sought by the United States.

Larijani was expected to meet with German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier and Javier Solana, the EU's chief foreign policy envoy.

At the opening dinner on Friday, Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni urged international solidarity in putting pressure on Iran to prevent it from producing a nuclear weapon.

"It is a regime that mocks the Holocaust while threatening the world with a new one, while trying to develop a weapon to do so," she said. "Iran is a threat not only to Israel ... but to the world. The international community cannot show any hesitation ... Any hesitation on our part is being perceived as weakness."

The conference this year focuses on "Global Crises -- Global Responsibilities," looking at NATO's changing role, the Middle East peace process, the West's relations with Russia and the fight against terrorism.

Merkel opened the conference telling the delegates that one of the major threats facing the world today is global warming, urging a combined effort to combat it.

"Global warming is one of the major medium- to long-term threats that could have a dramatic effect," Merkel said.

Gates, who planned to talk Sunday on trans-Atlantic relations, was expected to press allies for more troops and aid for a spring offensive in Afghanistan.

He delivered the message Friday to a NATO defense minister's meeting in Seville, Spain, but got a lukewarm response.

France and Germany are questioning the wisdom of sending more soldiers, while Spain, Italy and Turkey have also been wary of providing more troops.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/europe....ap/index.html

If this was another leader, I may take it a different way. But Putin goes after nato here. Why was NATO formed again? Oh yeah, to fend off the soviet union, aka russia. And what country is putin in charge of? The one that NATO was formed to keep in check. So yeah, he's not happy when NATO does ANYTHING.

"The process of NATO expansion has nothing to do with modernization of the alliance or with ensuring security in Europe," Putin said. "On the contrary, it is a serious factor provoking reduction of mutual trust."

Except, most everyone in europe, except russia, like NATO.

No, Putin doesn't want a challenge to his regime. Because that is what it is now. A regime. Whoever he wants to be elected next will be. He has almost total control.

[Alex]

I actually want someone who knows to explain this to me, just getting that out of the way so no one thinks the following is retorical.
I understand why an american would be against a missle defense system, it's expensive, our current enemies don't really have icbms, etc etc.
Why would a foreign leader have a problem with a missle defense system of another country? Can it be used to attack other countries in a way we previously couldn't?

[moebius]

I actually want someone who knows to explain this to me, just getting that out of the way so no one thinks the following is retorical.
I understand why an american would be against a missle defense system, it's expensive, our current enemies don't really have icbms, etc etc.
Why would a foreign leader have a problem with a missle defense system of another country? Can it be used to attack other countries in a way we previously couldn't?

If it were effective, a missile defense system would theoretically neutralize an opponent's ability to ensure Mutually Assured Destruction in a nuclear exchange.

If you don't fear your opponent's ability to destroy you, theoretically you're much more willing to consider a nuclear option.

Basically, if you have a shield you're more likely to use your sword.

[Alex]

If it were effective, a missile defense system would theoretically neutralize an opponent's ability to ensure Mutually Assured Destruction in a nuclear exchange.

If you don't fear your opponent's ability to destroy you, theoretically you're much more willing to consider a nuclear option.

Basically, if you have a shield you're more likely to use your sword.

That's the stupidest thing i've ever read in my life...in reguards to this topic at least.
Not an insult to you, as i think that's a pretty reasonable guess at what Putin is thinking.
But i doubht publicly he would say "America shouldn't find a way to defend itself, they should deal with getting destroyed if we get destroyed!"
I think, realisticly, considering the bombs we have today, if you take the threat of nuclear weapons away from other countries, there is no real use for the original country to use nuclear weapons.
Or, to use the metaphor, if you have a shield and a sword, and the enemy has nothing, why not punch him in the face instead of killing him?

I'm not for missle defense, i certainly don't fear russia attacking us, and i don't really see china launching nukes, and i really don't think Iran will get as far as developing a nuke, certainly not the ability to deliver it here. Plus, it costs too damn much.
But if somebody tried to honestly attack it by saying we can't have one because we'd be more likely to use nukes, i wouldn't accept that.

[Drew Van T.]

Putin has a valid point in that US seems intent on restarting the arms race. It is spending ungodly amounts of money on new military projects, upping the budget, expanding the army, and the argument that all this is to fight terror is ludicrously easy to poke holes into (like Iraq: withdrawing from there would instantly solve many of the shortages and strains that the army is complaining about, and everyone today admits that invading Iraq in the first place was not justified by the war on terror).

Now, I think that Putin wants to restart the arms race, too, for reasons of his own. But he needs a cover for that, and America is giving him an excellent cover by doing it first so that Russia can - with some justification - argue that it feels threatened.

[Iangould]

I actually want someone who knows to explain this to me, just getting that out of the way so no one thinks the following is retorical.
I understand why an american would be against a missle defense system, it's expensive, our current enemies don't really have icbms, etc etc.
Why would a foreign leader have a problem with a missle defense system of another country? Can it be used to attack other countries in a way we previously couldn't?

Yes, because the US no longer has to worry about nuclear retaliation.

It effectively makes the Russian nuclear deterrent worthless- or it would if it ever worked.

Look at it this way how would you feel if Russia or China had this capability.

Oh and if it is a purely defensive system with no offensive potential, I'm sure the US will be happy to sell it to all comers, right?

[Samurai]

Yes, because the US no longer has to worry about nuclear retaliation.

It effectively makes the Russian nuclear deterrent worthless- or it would if it ever worked.

Look at it this way how would you feel if Russia or China had this capability.

Oh and if it is a purely defensive system with no offensive potential, I'm sure the US will be happy to sell it to all comers, right?

To our long-standing allies like England, Canada, Israel, and Australia, I'm sure they will sell the technology. To potential enemies like China or Iran, hell no.

[Drew Van T.]

To our long-standing allies like England, Canada, Israel, and Australia, I'm sure they will sell the technology.

I seriously doubt that any of them will want to waste vast amounts of money on such a thing.

Except Israel, which wants any weapon it can get, but I doubt that it will be able to realize a shield without help from their neighbours.

[Iangould]

To our long-standing allies like England, Canada, Israel, and Australia, I'm sure they will sell the technology. To potential enemies like China or Iran, hell no.

So you disagree with Alex about missile defence being a completely nonthreatening defensive system?

So do I.

[Charles RB]

How do you justify a missile defence system as being needed for fighting terrorism? Terrorists don't use missiles.

To our long-standing allies like England... I'm sure they will sell the technology.

Bet you won't.

[moebius]

To our long-standing allies like England, Canada, Israel, and Australia, I'm sure they will sell the technology. To potential enemies like China or Iran, hell no.

Except it doesn't work...so caveat emptor.

[moebius]

But i doubht publicly he would say "America shouldn't find a way to defend itself, they should deal with getting destroyed if we get destroyed!"

For historical background, this was exactly what triggered the Cuban Missile Crisis. The Russians were freaked out that we had missiles in Turkey (which would reach Russia so fast they couldn't retaliate) and we were freaked out by the possibility that they could put missiles in Cuba (which giving the Russians the same first strike capability).

Security between nuclear powers has always been ensured by MAD...it's too costly to actually use a nuclear weapon.

[Charles RB]

it's too costly to actually use a nuclear weapon.

Ever seen this scene of Threads? "Costly" is a bloody understatement.

[Shellhead]

Great. Just great. If Putin has been following the news for the last five years, he has to know that Bush isn't going to pull back due to pressure. So we will have the return of the Cold War. Maybe I should renew my old subscription to The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, just so I can stay current with the Doomsday Clock. (Which currently stands at 5 minutes until midnight.)

[warspite1805]

It is up to the US Government (and people) what they spend their money (the American tax payers money) on there is nothing stoppinfg other countries spending some of their cash on defence.

The prtoblem is that the missile defence system will placew America's allies at greater risk, because it is in countries like Great Britain that the rradar stations that it is so dependent on will be based.

There had better be some benefit for the UK if Blair signs up for this.