The Russian president is unlikely to attend a NATO summit in Chicago if the missile defense issue is not on its agenda© AFP 2013/ Armend Nimani
MOSCOW, March 6 (RIA Novosti)
- Putin Blames U.S. for Failed Missile Defense Talks
- Russia Sees No Progress at Missile Defense Talks
- Medvedev: Russia Will Counter U.S. Missile Defense
- Russia to Build Effective Shield against NATO Missile Threat – Rogozin
The Russian president is unlikely to attend a NATO summit in Chicago if the missile defense issue is not on its agenda, Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov said on Tuesday.
“Russia has an invitation to the NATO summit; everything depends on the agenda,” he said.
However, if the issue of the NATO missile defense system remains unchanged, then the chances of the Russian president attending the summit “will be even smaller,” he added.
“We have a considerable amount of work in progress but in the absence of [a discussion] on missile defense there would probably not be enough to take part in the summit,” Ryabkov said.
NATO members agreed to create a missile shield over Europe to protect it against ballistic missiles launched by so-called rogue states, such as Iran and North Korea, at a summit in Lisbon, Portugal, in 2010.
Russia has demanded that NATO provide written, legally binding guarantees that its missile shield will not be directed against Moscow but the alliance has been reluctant to meet the demand.
Add to blog
You may place this material on your blog by copying the link.
- email@example.comStill worth the effort to attend18:18, 06/03/2012I understand Putin's stand and concern on the issue of the European Missile Defence shield.
However I think it is important to attend the NATO conference simply to be kept up to date on what is going on in the minds of the other side.
With regards to the European Missile Defence Shield.
The United States and Europe will not sign a legally binding international document stating that they will not point the missiles at Russian military targets in the future.
Because the United States and Europe need to take control of Russia and Iran's oil reserves by 2020.
The United States and 65% of European countries exhaust their domestic oil reserves by 2020.
By 2020 the United States needs to find another 9.7 to 11.3 million barrels of oil to import a day.
The only two countries where this oil can come from is Iran and Russia.
Why does the United States and Europe want to pay for the oil?
Normally a country would purchase American arms for a balance of trade. But Russia has its own defence industry.
In this case Russia would take the oil revenue and put a large part of it into military defence.
The United States and Europe find it very difficult to accept Russia becoming the world's foremost super power.
Sadly the days of super power status for the United States are dwindling. The years of 2015 to 2020 will see this change start to occur and then accelerate from 2020 to 2030.
- arsanlupinHow is this post ludicrous?22:46, 06/03/2012Let me count the ways …
1. The U.S. and Europe have no need – and no desire – to control oil or anything else in either Iran or Russia. Why should they? There’s another country with almost as much oil reserves (175 billion) as both Iran and Russia combined, right across the most UN-defended border in the world from the USA – Canada. In fact, the former CEO of Shell Canada estimated it far higher – 2 trillion bbl. Why wouldn’t a “Canadian” know this?
2. 65% of European countries never DID have any oil reserves. No problem – just buy it … like everyone else has for almost a century.
3. Oil imports to the US have dropped by at least 25% since its peak in 2005, and the trend is continuing downward.
4. Iran and Russia combined hold about 16% of the world’s proven oil reserves. That leaves 84% elsewhere in the world, held mostly by countries perfectly willing to continue doing business with The West.
5. The USA and Europe are quite happy to continue buying oil. And since consumption is dropping for multiple reasons, the lifetime of said reserves will continue to grow.
6. The USA exports over $1.5 trillion per year, and the EU another $1.8 trillion. Total arms exports from the USA are running about $8.6 billion/year, another $7.5 billion from the EU – about ½ of 1% of exports. Russia’s arms exports are as much as the US and EU exports combined.
7. At current expenditures it would take the rest of the 21st century for Russia’s military to match that of NATO quantitatively. As for quality … there is an old Russian saying: “So long as they continue to pretend to pay us, we will continue to pretend to work.” Quality control has always been a huge problem in Russian manufacturing, and it shows no signs of improving. “Foremost superpower”??? Yeah – just like the paper tiger they were as the USSR.
8. “Dwindling”? Wishful thinking at best; serious overuse of hallucinogens more likely.
9. And let’s not forget the facts about the missile shield itself – that it can ONLY be used against incoming missiles already over Europe (not at any ground or sea targets), and it won’t even have the capacity to adequately defend against Iran’s current known missile arsenal until the year 2020. Against all 2723 of Russia’s strategic nuclear warheads (plus several thousand tactical nukes) – not a ghost of a chance. Against anything on the ground – a physical impossibility. Russia is paranoid that NATO might be able to prevent Russia from nuking all of Europe – and they are outraged! Get the idea now?
All in all, a fine example of distortions, fabrications, wishful thinking, and taking facts out of context to try to “prove” a pet theory that is in fact arrant nonsense. All of this calls into question the purported residence of the poster – “Ottowa”? I think more likely Tiraspol. Perhaps “Arnold” should move there – he would fit in far better than in NATO member Canada.
Image Galleries: Monkeys from Borneo and Other Animal News
Infographics: The Origin of Geomagnetic Storms
Cartoons: Dreams of Space
The failure of the Islamist political parties who came to power in the dramatic events of the Arab Spring would allow the military to reenter the political arena. Political Islam was successful in the opposition, but it could fail in power, as the negative experience of Egypt and Iraq have shown.