Comments for Oriental Review http://orientalreview.org Open Dialogue Research Journal Fri, 18 May 2012 03:17:37 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 Comment on Can Iran Defeat the US in a Major War? by Why the US Needs a Major War | Oriental Review http://orientalreview.org/2012/01/12/can-iran-defeat-the-us-in-a-major-war/comment-page-1/#comment-18274 Why the US Needs a Major War | Oriental Review Fri, 18 May 2012 03:17:37 +0000 http://orientalreview.org/?p=3147#comment-18274 [...] Can Iran, given the necessary backing, put an end to the US universal expansion? The question will be addressed in the next article. [...] [...] Can Iran, given the necessary backing, put an end to the US universal expansion? The question will be addressed in the next article. [...]

]]> Comment on Why the US Needs a Major War by Why the US Needs a Major War [Viewpoint Russia] « Wonders of Pakistan http://orientalreview.org/2012/01/10/why-the-us-needs-a-major-war/comment-page-1/#comment-18263 Why the US Needs a Major War [Viewpoint Russia] « Wonders of Pakistan Thu, 17 May 2012 12:36:37 +0000 http://orientalreview.org/?p=3125#comment-18263 [...] Source [...] [...] Source [...]

]]> Comment on US, Israeli and Saudi-funded Terrorists Destabilizing Syria Now Under Fire in Lebanon by marwa http://orientalreview.org/2012/05/15/us-israeli-and-saudi-funded-terrorists-destabilizing-syria-now-under-fire-in-lebanon/comment-page-1/#comment-18247 marwa Tue, 15 May 2012 21:26:06 +0000 http://orientalreview.org/?p=3668#comment-18247 Iranian and Israeli Marines and Submarines are in the Red Sea, Planning to occupy Egypt and Gulf Countries, with Israeli and Hamas Troops Invading Sinai at the Same Time! http://members.beforeitsnews.com/story/2136/168/Iranian_and_Israeli_Marines_and_Submarines_are_in_the_Red_Sea,_Planning_to_occupy_Egypt_and_Gulf_Countries,_with_Israeli_and_Hamas_Troops_Invading_Sinai_at_the_Same_Time.html Iranian and Israeli Marines and Submarines are in the Red Sea, Planning to occupy Egypt and Gulf Countries, with Israeli and Hamas Troops Invading Sinai at the Same Time!

http://members.beforeitsnews.com/story/2136/168/Iranian_and_Israeli_Marines_and_Submarines_are_in_the_Red_Sea,_Planning_to_occupy_Egypt_and_Gulf_Countries,_with_Israeli_and_Hamas_Troops_Invading_Sinai_at_the_Same_Time.html

]]> Comment on US, Israeli and Saudi-funded Terrorists Destabilizing Syria Now Under Fire in Lebanon by US, Israeli and Saudi-funded Terrorists Destabilizing Syria Now Under Fire in Lebanon « Therearenosunglasses’s Weblog http://orientalreview.org/2012/05/15/us-israeli-and-saudi-funded-terrorists-destabilizing-syria-now-under-fire-in-lebanon/comment-page-1/#comment-18244 US, Israeli and Saudi-funded Terrorists Destabilizing Syria Now Under Fire in Lebanon « Therearenosunglasses’s Weblog Tue, 15 May 2012 18:59:55 +0000 http://orientalreview.org/?p=3668#comment-18244 [...] US, Israeli and Saudi-funded Terrorists Destabilizing Syria Now Under Fire in Lebanon [...] [...] US, Israeli and Saudi-funded Terrorists Destabilizing Syria Now Under Fire in Lebanon [...]

]]> Comment on Seif al-Islam Gaddafi and the Fight behind the Scene over His Fate by Donald http://orientalreview.org/2012/05/14/seif-al-islam-gaddafi-and-the-fight-behind-the-scene-over-his-fate/comment-page-1/#comment-18222 Donald Mon, 14 May 2012 03:41:06 +0000 http://orientalreview.org/?p=3664#comment-18222 You forgot to mention O'Campo being on the take by Libya/NTC...and offered a follow-on job there. And the plan in Libya was to execute Saif 2 weeks before elections...though then they fired the Prime Minister and cabinet cause (in part) they were trying to hold real elections vice letting NTC control the outcome. But since the Libyans were not capable, on their behalf, US Dept of State/Amb Cretz wrote the letter from Libya to ICC asking to try Said in Libya and saying they could have a fair trial (yeah, sure!) You forgot to mention O’Campo being on the take by Libya/NTC…and offered a follow-on job there. And the plan in Libya was to execute Saif 2 weeks before elections…though then they fired the Prime Minister and cabinet cause (in part) they were trying to hold real elections vice letting NTC control the outcome. But since the Libyans were not capable, on their behalf, US Dept of State/Amb Cretz wrote the letter from Libya to ICC asking to try Said in Libya and saying they could have a fair trial (yeah, sure!)

]]> Comment on Upcoming G8 Forum and the Objectives Behind the Looming Great War by Peter Chamberlin http://orientalreview.org/2012/05/13/upcoming-g8-forum-and-the-objectives-behind-the-looming-great-war/comment-page-1/#comment-18213 Peter Chamberlin Sun, 13 May 2012 18:15:00 +0000 http://orientalreview.org/?p=3660#comment-18213 Outstanding analysis. I hope that Putin has a chance to read this. Outstanding analysis. I hope that Putin has a chance to read this.

]]> Comment on US Missile Shields Demand a New Tough Response by Vladimir http://orientalreview.org/2012/03/30/us-missile-shields-demand-a-new-tough-response/comment-page-1/#comment-18102 Vladimir Fri, 04 May 2012 10:14:19 +0000 http://orientalreview.org/?p=3544#comment-18102 Hi, everybody, As I have tolsd you earlier, the Russian Defense Ministry has organized a representational international conference called “Missile Defense Factor in Establishing New Security Environment” on May 3-4 in Moscow to correlate positions of many interested states on the burning issue of missile defense. Over 200 experts from military departments of 50 countries, including 28 NATO states, have gathered in the Russian capital to share opinions. Opening the conference, Russian Defense Minister Anatoly Serdyukov stated that so far no mutually-acceptable solution to the issue of ABM has been found. “The situation is practically heading towards a dead end,” acknowledged Servdyukov. Russia is ready for a pre-emptive strike on European missile defense systems if the US refuses dialogue, stated Russia’s Chief of General Staff Nikolay Makarov at the Moscow ABM conference. ­“Considering the destabilizing nature of the [American] BMD system, namely the creation of an illusion of inflicting a disarming [nuclear] strike with impunity, a decision on pre-emptive deployment of assault weapons could be taken when the situation gets harder,” Gen. Makarov told the audience. The projected European missile defense system could by 2020 have the ability to intercept Russian intercontinental ballistic missiles, Secretary of Russia’s Security Council Nikolai Patrushev said on Thursday. The United States and NATO agreed to develop the system at a summit in Lisbon in 2010, but talks between Russia and the alliance have floundered over NATO’s refusal to grant Russia legal guarantees that the system would not be aimed against Russia’s strategic nuclear deterrent. “By 2018-2020 - that is the third and fourth phases of the deployment of the Euro-missile defense in Europe – the continent should have enough anti-missile defense to be able to intercept part of Russia’s intercontinental ballistic missiles, and submarine launched ballistic missiles,” Patrushev said at an international conference on Euro-missile defense in Moscow. “The geographical regions and technical characteristics of these missile defense systems create the foundations for additional dangers, especially considering the current and future levels of high-precision armament of the United States,” he said. “Our experts say other targets, which could require serious missile defense against it, do not really exist,” he said. Patrushev said the creation of the Euro-missile defense, which is taking place without Russia’s agreement and will lead to a degradation of Russia’s nuclear deterrent, could lead to a disbalance in strategic stability at the regional and global levels. “The refusal to discuss the conditions for providing legal binding guarantees for the deployment system to be not aimed at Russia strengthens our convictions that the real goal of this missile defense system could differ from what is stated,” he said. Russia’s military and political leadership has already warned its western partners several times that if talks fail, Russia may take a series of measures including deployment of Iskander short-range nuclear-capable tactical ballistic missiles in the Kaliningrad exclave, as well as in the south and south-east. So, I personally share all these views expressed at the Moscow conference. Hi, everybody,
As I have tolsd you earlier, the Russian Defense Ministry has organized a representational international conference called “Missile Defense Factor in Establishing New Security Environment” on May 3-4 in Moscow to correlate positions of many interested states on the burning issue of missile defense.
Over 200 experts from military departments of 50 countries, including 28 NATO states, have gathered in the Russian capital to share opinions.
Opening the conference, Russian Defense Minister Anatoly Serdyukov stated that so far no mutually-acceptable solution to the issue of ABM has been found.

“The situation is practically heading towards a dead end,” acknowledged Servdyukov.
Russia is ready for a pre-emptive strike on European missile defense systems if the US refuses dialogue, stated Russia’s Chief of General Staff Nikolay Makarov at the Moscow ABM conference.
­“Considering the destabilizing nature of the [American] BMD system, namely the creation of an illusion of inflicting a disarming [nuclear] strike with impunity, a decision on pre-emptive deployment of assault weapons could be taken when the situation gets harder,” Gen. Makarov told the audience.

The projected European missile defense system could by 2020 have the ability to intercept Russian intercontinental ballistic missiles, Secretary of Russia’s Security Council Nikolai Patrushev said on Thursday.
The United States and NATO agreed to develop the system at a summit in Lisbon in 2010, but talks between Russia and the alliance have floundered over NATO’s refusal to grant Russia legal guarantees that the system would not be aimed against Russia’s strategic nuclear deterrent.
“By 2018-2020 – that is the third and fourth phases of the deployment of the Euro-missile defense in Europe – the continent should have enough anti-missile defense to be able to intercept part of Russia’s intercontinental ballistic missiles, and submarine launched ballistic missiles,” Patrushev said at an international conference on Euro-missile defense in Moscow.
“The geographical regions and technical characteristics of these missile defense systems create the foundations for additional dangers, especially considering the current and future levels of high-precision armament of the United States,” he said.
“Our experts say other targets, which could require serious missile defense against it, do not really exist,” he said.
Patrushev said the creation of the Euro-missile defense, which is taking place without Russia’s agreement and will lead to a degradation of Russia’s nuclear deterrent, could lead to a disbalance in strategic stability at the regional and global levels.
“The refusal to discuss the conditions for providing legal binding guarantees for the deployment system to be not aimed at Russia strengthens our convictions that the real goal of this missile defense system could differ from what is stated,” he said.
Russia’s military and political leadership has already warned its western partners several times that if talks fail, Russia may take a series of measures including deployment of Iskander short-range nuclear-capable tactical ballistic missiles in the Kaliningrad exclave, as well as in the south and south-east.
So, I personally share all these views expressed at the Moscow conference.

]]> Comment on US Missile Shields Demand a New Tough Response by Vladimir http://orientalreview.org/2012/03/30/us-missile-shields-demand-a-new-tough-response/comment-page-1/#comment-18092 Vladimir Thu, 03 May 2012 08:36:45 +0000 http://orientalreview.org/?p=3544#comment-18092 Dear readers, Some remarks that have been already made by a number of esteemed foreign commentators need to be answered because they seemingly are not aware of the current realities dealt with the US BMDS through Russian perspective. 1)As to the terminology. The US Missile Defense Agency interprets the "BMDS" as "Ballistic Missile Defense System" (not "systemS"). Here in Russia we have the same term "Система ПРО" which is absolutely the same (a 100% equivalent). 2)Whatever Lt-Gen. Patrick O'Reilly, the US MDA Director, have said during a number of Congressional hearings on the US BMDS between 2009-2012 are HIS statements and that of the US MDA, but not as alleged Russian interpretation. These unclassified statements are awailable at the US MDA web-site and can be verified by anybody all over the world via the Internet. 3)Russia's major concern are phases 3 and 4 of the EPAA, where SM-3 interceptors occupy the leading role, as it was annownced by the the US President, US Defense Secretary and the US MDA Director many times. The fact that in some Russian official statements stages 3 and 4 of the EPAA are specifically mentioned, without making direct references to the SM-3 interceptors, means nothing substantial. The crux is the same - the fielding US BMDS close to Russian borders is no good for Russia. 4)True, that some of the Russian experts, including pro-Western and those who share official Moscow's view on the BMD issue, have been invited to talk to Mr Vladimir Putin earlier this year. At the meeting held in Sarov city on February 24th the next Russian President (after the inauguration on May 7th) reiterated Russian official stance on the BMD issue with the USA (to be more accurate I quote it in Russian): "Что касается выстраивания наших дальнейших отношений по ПРО, они серьёзно не хотят с нами разговаривать (вот министр обороны здесь сидит, здесь некоторые другие коллеги есть), я вам могу сказать точно – они уклоняются. По сути всё, что делается в этой сфере, – это разговор на заданную тему с попыткой представить международной общественности дело таким образом, что да, развиваются наши отношения, да, технологии уходят вперёд, да, угрозы возникают, и никто не может им запретить эти угрозы купировать на будущее для своей национальной безопасности. А кто против-то? Понятно, что нужно купировать угрозы для своей национальной безопасности, но нужно сделать это таким образом, чтобы не создавать новых угроз глобального характера, не разрушать вот этот баланс стратегических сил, вот о чём идёт речь. Но всё-таки, на наш взгляд, предпринимается попытка этот баланс разрушить и создать для себя монополию на неуязвимость, вот о чём идёт речь. И нам просто нужно делать то, о чём мы уже сказали. А о чём мы уже сказали? Что мы будем предпринимать ассиметричные, но эффективные шаги, я уже говорил публично, ещё раз могу сказать, мы разговаривали с прежним президентом, я сказал: «Если вы будете так дальше действовать, мы вынуждены будем ассиметрично эти шаги предпринимать. Допустим, создавать новые комплексы, которые будут гораздо более эффективными по преодолению этой системы ПРО, это нам дешевле и проще. Что будет потом? Мы посмотрим, но так как вы нам говорите, что это не направлено против нас, системы ПРО, так и мы говорим вам, что они не направлены против вас». Ответ был простой: «Делайте, что хотите, мы же не враги больше». – «Хорошо, мы так и сделаем». Вот у нас уже «Тополь-М», «Ярс», десять ракетных полков оснащено, – это не всё, что мы ещё можем сделать. Но мне кажется, что всё-таки осознание того, что мы можем воткнуться в какой-то новый виток этой гонки вооружений, он всё-таки должен нас всех подвигнуть к тому, что нужно быть более конструктивными в ходе переговорного процесса, – это первое". So, the official Russian position on the BMD issue was clearly stated. What has happened with the Russian stance on the BMD issue after that meeting in Sarov? It has NOT been reconsidered at all! More that that, three days after the talk Mr.Vladimir Puti has published an article in the "Moscow News" national newspaper entitled as "Russia and the Changing World" where his remarks on the US BMDS became more stronger (see the original para): "Как и прежде, считаю, что к числу важнейших постулатов относятся неделимый характер безопасности для всех государств, недопустимость гипертрофированного применения силы и безусловное соблюдение основополагающих принципов международного права. Пренебрежение всем этим ведет к дестабилизации международных отношений. Именно через такую призму мы воспринимаем некоторые аспекты поведения США и НАТО, которые не вписываются в логику современного развития, опираются на стереотипы блокового мышления. Все понимают, что я имею в виду. Это расширение НАТО, включающее размещение новых объектов военной инфраструктуры, и планы альянса (с американским авторством) по созданию системы ПРО в Европе. Не стал бы касаться этой темы, если бы такие игры не велись непосредственно у российских границ, если бы они не расшатывали нашу безопасность, если бы они не работали против стабильности в мире. Наша аргументация хорошо известна, не буду ее вновь разжевывать, но, к сожалению, она не воспринимается западными партнерами, от нее отмахиваются". So, the key words used by him here are: the US/NATO BMD in Europe is "shaking our [Russian] security", and is working "against the stability in the world". In the other paragraph below Mr. Vladimir Putin said the following: "Повторю, что американская затея с созданием системы ПРО в Европе вызывает у нас законные опасения. Почему эта система беспокоит нас больше, чем других? Да потому, что она затрагивает имеющиеся только у России на этом театре силы стратегического ядерного сдерживания, нарушает выверенный десятилетиями военно-политический баланс. Неразрывная взаимосвязь между ПРО и стратегическими наступательными вооружениями отражена в подписанном в 2010 году новом Договоре по СНВ. Договор вступил в силу и неплохо работает. Это крупное внешнеполитическое достижение. Мы готовы рассматривать разные варианты того, что может составить нашу совместную с американцами повестку дня в области контроля над вооружениями на предстоящий период. Незыблемым правилом при этом должен стать баланс интересов, отказ от попыток через переговоры добиться для себя односторонних преимуществ. Напомню, что я еще президенту Дж. Бушу на встрече в Кеннебанкпорте в 2007 году предлагал решение проблемы ПРО, которое — будь оно принято — изменило бы привычный характер российско-американских отношений, перевело бы ситуацию в позитивное русло. Более того, если бы тогда удалось добиться прорыва по ПРО, то в буквальном смысле открылись бы шлюзы для выстраивания качественно новой, близкой к союзнической модели сотрудничества и во многих других чувствительных областях. Не получилось. Было бы, наверное, полезно поднять запись переговоров в Кеннебанкпорте. В последние годы российским руководством делались и другие предложения, как можно было бы договориться по ПРО. Все они — в силе. Во всяком случае, не хотелось бы ставить крест на возможности поисков компромиссных вариантов решения проблемы ПРО. Не хотелось бы доводить дело до размещения американской системы в таких масштабах, чтобы это потребовало реализации наших объявленных контрмер". Mr. Putin observed that the US BMDS in Europe "is causing amongst us legitimate concerns", because it touches upon not only the Russian strategic deterrence, but undermines the "military-political balance that have shaped up during several decades". He also mentioned the objective interrelationship between the the BMD and the Strategic Offensive Arms - the point many Russian pro-Western prefer to neglect. What is more important that the current position of the Kremlin on the US BMDS is not going to be changed after Mr. Vladimir Putin will be sworn in as the next Russian President on May 7th, 2012. 5) The truth is that a number of pro-Western Russian experts that has attended the meeting with Mr.Vladimir Putin in Sarov city on February 24th, 2012 have not been able to change the Russian official stance on the BMD issue. Their well-known positive attitude towards the US BMDS in Europe does not mean that they reflect official point of view on the issue. All of them reveal their own, privite assessments. I was not at the Sarov meeting and therefore could not influence on Mr.Putin's views on the matter under consideration, either. By the way, after that conversation Mr.Esin and Mr. Savostianov admitted publicly that the USA can increase the velocity of their interceptors and emplace weapons in space in the future, and that it might create problems for Russia. Mr. Arbatov prefers to stay "in the shadow" (avoiding to take part in the discussion where previously he took part). Mr.Oznobischev and Mr.Dvorkin claim that the US BMDS in Europe will do no harm to Russia. Former General Zolotarev in an article published by "Nezavisimoe Vojennoe Obozrenie" (No 14, April-May 2012) admitted that there is a ground for concern over the US BMD and that the lack of clarity in the US BMD makes further reductions in Strategic Offensive Arms "problematic". Mr. Rogov does not want to spoil his relationship both with Moscow and Washington. At the same time he made some negative points towards the US BMDS in Europe and labelled some Russian scholars backing the the Kremlin's position on the BMDS as "hurray-patriots" that caused displeasure in the respectivbe circles: Mr.Putin said that in the terms of national security to use the term "hurray-patriots" is irrelevant. The Russian academic community currently are conducting a rather tough and even fierce discussion on the US BMD issue - unlike in the past. It is good, really good fenomena while creating a civil society. Nevertheless,I have a normal, business-like working relations with those Russian scholars who openly crticise me for my pro-Kremlin stance on the BMD issue. It is really good fenomena, because, as we used to say: "The truth may stem from the debates". 6) On May 3-4, 2012 the Russian Ministry of Defense have conducted an international conference on the BMD issue where it prooved quite the contary - the system can pose a real threat to the Russian strategic capabilities at a later stages. The material of the conference is worth reading, I believe, for better understanding Russian national position on the US/NATO BMDS in Europe. 7) And a final brush. I have noticed a long time ago that too many Americans still adore their pro-Western "comrades" for their criticism of the Soviet Union and later Russia and for their sharing of Western views on strtategic security matters that undermine my country's security and her national interests. At the same time they hate those Russians who advocate Russian national position on the same issues. It is their owm business, we do not care.It will do no harm to the letter. Some harch criticism that have been heard already in this domain signifies that someimes, to go by Russian proverb, "the real truth pricks an eye" (direct translation; the meaninfg is "the real truth annoys the other side who hears it"). Partly, there is one of the reason, why there is a mistrust between the USA and Russia. Do you know, by chance, the saying that has been used by ex-President Ronald Reagan while meeting with thew Soviet newsmen in the White House - a long time ago: "People arm because they mistrust each other, and people mistrust each other because they arm". What do you think about it? Good luck and take care! Vladimir Dear readers,
Some remarks that have been already made by a number of esteemed foreign commentators need to be answered because they seemingly are not aware of the current realities dealt with the US BMDS through Russian perspective.
1)As to the terminology. The US Missile Defense Agency interprets the “BMDS” as “Ballistic Missile Defense System” (not “systemS”). Here in Russia we have the same term “Система ПРО” which is absolutely the same (a 100% equivalent).
2)Whatever Lt-Gen. Patrick O’Reilly, the US MDA Director, have said during a number of Congressional hearings on the US BMDS between 2009-2012 are HIS statements and that of the US MDA, but not as alleged Russian interpretation. These unclassified statements are awailable at the US MDA web-site and can be verified by anybody all over the world via the Internet.
3)Russia’s major concern are phases 3 and 4 of the EPAA, where SM-3 interceptors occupy the leading role, as it was annownced by the the US President, US Defense Secretary and the US MDA Director many times. The fact that in some Russian official statements stages 3 and 4 of the EPAA are specifically mentioned, without making direct references to the SM-3 interceptors, means nothing substantial. The crux is the same – the fielding US BMDS close to Russian borders is no good for Russia.
4)True, that some of the Russian experts, including pro-Western and those who share official Moscow’s view on the BMD issue, have been invited to talk to Mr Vladimir Putin earlier this year. At the meeting held in Sarov city on February 24th the next Russian President (after the inauguration on May 7th) reiterated Russian official stance on the BMD issue with the USA (to be more accurate I quote it in Russian): “Что касается выстраивания наших дальнейших отношений по ПРО, они серьёзно не хотят с нами разговаривать (вот министр обороны здесь сидит, здесь некоторые другие коллеги есть), я вам могу сказать точно – они уклоняются. По сути всё, что делается в этой сфере, – это разговор на заданную тему с попыткой представить международной общественности дело таким образом, что да, развиваются наши отношения, да, технологии уходят вперёд, да, угрозы возникают, и никто не может им запретить эти угрозы купировать на будущее для своей национальной безопасности. А кто против-то? Понятно, что нужно купировать угрозы для своей национальной безопасности, но нужно сделать это таким образом, чтобы не создавать новых угроз глобального характера, не разрушать вот этот баланс стратегических сил, вот о чём идёт речь. Но всё-таки, на наш взгляд, предпринимается попытка этот баланс разрушить и создать для себя монополию на неуязвимость, вот о чём идёт речь. И нам просто нужно делать то, о чём мы уже сказали. А о чём мы уже сказали? Что мы будем предпринимать ассиметричные, но эффективные шаги, я уже говорил публично, ещё раз могу сказать, мы разговаривали с прежним президентом, я сказал: «Если вы будете так дальше действовать, мы вынуждены будем ассиметрично эти шаги предпринимать. Допустим, создавать новые комплексы, которые будут гораздо более эффективными по преодолению этой системы ПРО, это нам дешевле и проще. Что будет потом? Мы посмотрим, но так как вы нам говорите, что это не направлено против нас, системы ПРО, так и мы говорим вам, что они не направлены против вас». Ответ был простой: «Делайте, что хотите, мы же не враги больше». – «Хорошо, мы так и сделаем». Вот у нас уже «Тополь-М», «Ярс», десять ракетных полков оснащено, – это не всё, что мы ещё можем сделать. Но мне кажется, что всё-таки осознание того, что мы можем воткнуться в какой-то новый виток этой гонки вооружений, он всё-таки должен нас всех подвигнуть к тому, что нужно быть более конструктивными в ходе переговорного процесса, – это первое”. So, the official Russian position on the BMD issue was clearly stated.
What has happened with the Russian stance on the BMD issue after that meeting in Sarov? It has NOT been reconsidered at all! More that that, three days after the talk Mr.Vladimir Puti has published an article in the “Moscow News” national newspaper entitled as “Russia and the Changing World” where his remarks on the US BMDS became more stronger (see the original para):

“Как и прежде, считаю, что к числу важнейших постулатов относятся неделимый характер безопасности для всех государств, недопустимость гипертрофированного применения силы и безусловное соблюдение основополагающих принципов международного права. Пренебрежение всем этим ведет к дестабилизации международных отношений.

Именно через такую призму мы воспринимаем некоторые аспекты поведения США и НАТО, которые не вписываются в логику современного развития, опираются на стереотипы блокового мышления. Все понимают, что я имею в виду. Это расширение НАТО, включающее размещение новых объектов военной инфраструктуры, и планы альянса (с американским авторством) по созданию системы ПРО в Европе. Не стал бы касаться этой темы, если бы такие игры не велись непосредственно у российских границ, если бы они не расшатывали нашу безопасность, если бы они не работали против стабильности в мире. Наша аргументация хорошо известна, не буду ее вновь разжевывать, но, к сожалению, она не воспринимается западными партнерами, от нее отмахиваются”.
So, the key words used by him here are: the US/NATO BMD in Europe is “shaking our [Russian] security”, and is working “against the stability in the world”.
In the other paragraph below Mr. Vladimir Putin said the following:
“Повторю, что американская затея с созданием системы ПРО в Европе вызывает у нас законные опасения. Почему эта система беспокоит нас больше, чем других? Да потому, что она затрагивает имеющиеся только у России на этом театре силы стратегического ядерного сдерживания, нарушает выверенный десятилетиями военно-политический баланс.

Неразрывная взаимосвязь между ПРО и стратегическими наступательными вооружениями отражена в подписанном в 2010 году новом Договоре по СНВ. Договор вступил в силу и неплохо работает. Это крупное внешнеполитическое достижение. Мы готовы рассматривать разные варианты того, что может составить нашу совместную с американцами повестку дня в области контроля над вооружениями на предстоящий период. Незыблемым правилом при этом должен стать баланс интересов, отказ от попыток через переговоры добиться для себя односторонних преимуществ.

Напомню, что я еще президенту Дж. Бушу на встрече в Кеннебанкпорте в 2007 году предлагал решение проблемы ПРО, которое — будь оно принято — изменило бы привычный характер российско-американских отношений, перевело бы ситуацию в позитивное русло. Более того, если бы тогда удалось добиться прорыва по ПРО, то в буквальном смысле открылись бы шлюзы для выстраивания качественно новой, близкой к союзнической модели сотрудничества и во многих других чувствительных областях.

Не получилось. Было бы, наверное, полезно поднять запись переговоров в Кеннебанкпорте. В последние годы российским руководством делались и другие предложения, как можно было бы договориться по ПРО. Все они — в силе. Во всяком случае, не хотелось бы ставить крест на возможности поисков компромиссных вариантов решения проблемы ПРО. Не хотелось бы доводить дело до размещения американской системы в таких масштабах, чтобы это потребовало реализации наших объявленных контрмер”.

Mr. Putin observed that the US BMDS in Europe “is causing amongst us legitimate concerns”, because it touches upon not only the Russian strategic deterrence, but undermines the “military-political balance that have shaped up during several decades”. He also mentioned the objective interrelationship between the the BMD and the Strategic Offensive Arms – the point many Russian pro-Western prefer to neglect.

What is more important that the current position of the Kremlin on the US BMDS is not going to be changed after Mr. Vladimir Putin will be sworn in as the next Russian President on May 7th, 2012.
5) The truth is that a number of pro-Western Russian experts that has attended the meeting with Mr.Vladimir Putin in Sarov city on February 24th, 2012 have not been able to change the Russian official stance on the BMD issue. Their well-known positive attitude towards the US BMDS in Europe does not mean that they reflect official point of view on the issue. All of them reveal their own, privite assessments. I was not at the Sarov meeting and therefore could not influence on Mr.Putin’s views on the matter under consideration, either.
By the way, after that conversation Mr.Esin and Mr. Savostianov admitted publicly that the USA can increase the velocity of their interceptors and emplace weapons in space in the future, and that it might create problems for Russia. Mr. Arbatov prefers to stay “in the shadow” (avoiding to take part in the discussion where previously he took part). Mr.Oznobischev and Mr.Dvorkin claim that the US BMDS in Europe will do no harm to Russia. Former General Zolotarev in an article published by “Nezavisimoe Vojennoe Obozrenie” (No 14, April-May 2012) admitted that there is a ground for concern over the US BMD and that the lack of clarity in the US BMD makes further reductions in Strategic Offensive Arms “problematic”. Mr. Rogov does not want to spoil his relationship both with Moscow and Washington. At the same time he made some negative points towards the US BMDS in Europe and labelled some Russian scholars backing the the Kremlin’s position on the BMDS as “hurray-patriots” that caused displeasure in the respectivbe circles: Mr.Putin said that in the terms of national security to use the term “hurray-patriots” is irrelevant.
The Russian academic community currently are conducting a rather tough and even fierce discussion on the US BMD issue – unlike in the past. It is good, really good fenomena while creating a civil society. Nevertheless,I have a normal, business-like working relations with those Russian scholars who openly crticise me for my pro-Kremlin stance on the BMD issue. It is really good fenomena, because, as we used to say: “The truth may stem from the debates”.
6) On May 3-4, 2012 the Russian Ministry of Defense have conducted an international conference on the BMD issue where it prooved quite the contary – the system can pose a real threat to the Russian strategic capabilities at a later stages. The material of the conference is worth reading, I believe, for better understanding Russian national position on the US/NATO BMDS in Europe.

7) And a final brush. I have noticed a long time ago that too many Americans still adore their pro-Western “comrades” for their criticism of the Soviet Union and later Russia and for their sharing of Western views on strtategic security matters that undermine my country’s security and her national interests. At the same time they hate those Russians who advocate Russian national position on the same issues. It is their owm business, we do not care.It will do no harm to the letter. Some harch criticism that have been heard already in this domain signifies that someimes, to go by Russian proverb, “the real truth pricks an eye” (direct translation; the meaninfg is “the real truth annoys the other side who hears it”).
Partly, there is one of the reason, why there is a mistrust between the USA and Russia.
Do you know, by chance, the saying that has been used by ex-President Ronald Reagan while meeting with thew Soviet newsmen in the White House – a long time ago: “People arm because they mistrust each other, and people mistrust each other because they arm”. What do you think about it?

Good luck and take care!
Vladimir

]]> Comment on Forget Muslim Arab Terrorists: America’s Enemy Is Being Rebranded by Radek http://orientalreview.org/2012/01/15/forget-muslim-arab-terrorists-americas-enemy-is-being-rebranded/comment-page-1/#comment-18087 Radek Wed, 02 May 2012 21:19:17 +0000 http://orientalreview.org/?p=3165#comment-18087 I wonder, can you explain any problem in Malaysia through a foreign conspiracy theory? I wonder, can you explain any problem in Malaysia through a foreign conspiracy theory?

]]> Comment on US Missile Shields Demand a New Tough Response by Editorial http://orientalreview.org/2012/03/30/us-missile-shields-demand-a-new-tough-response/comment-page-1/#comment-18081 Editorial Wed, 02 May 2012 15:37:13 +0000 http://orientalreview.org/?p=3544#comment-18081 @Valery Brandt Valery, you are welcome to write any article on the subject of your competence and we assure you that it will be considered with due respect. But please try not to be as emotional and pointless as you were in your comment. Sorry to say, but Mr.Kozin's post and comments look much more informative and insightful than yours... @Frank Ballistic Missile Defense System (BMDS) is the official term of the Department of Defense of the United States. In case of doubt please google it. Think first, then post :) @Valery Brandt

Valery, you are welcome to write any article on the subject of your competence and we assure you that it will be considered with due respect. But please try not to be as emotional and pointless as you were in your comment. Sorry to say, but Mr.Kozin’s post and comments look much more informative and insightful than yours…

@Frank

Ballistic Missile Defense System (BMDS) is the official term of the Department of Defense of the United States. In case of doubt please google it. Think first, then post :)

]]>